Soviet Defensive Tactics - Kursk 43
How did the Red Army stop the Wehrmacht at the Battle of Kursk (1943). What were there defensive tactics? How well were they dug in? Where there organizational changes? Where there special precautions taken due to the Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger?
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Glantz, David M.: Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943. Combat Studies Institute. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1986.
Töppel, Roman: Kursk 1943. The Greatest Battle of the Second World War. Helion: Warwick, UK: 2018.
Glantz, David M. (ed.) ; Orenstein, Harold S. (ed.): The Battle for Kursk 1943. The Soviet General Staff Study. Frank Cass: Portland, OR, USA: 1999 (1990).
Hartmann, Christian: Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg. Front und militärisches Hinterland 1941/42. De Gruyter Oldenbourg: 2010.
Sharp, Charles C.: The Soviet Order of Battle. World War II. An Organizational History of the Major Combat Units of the Soviet Army. Volume II: “School of Battle”. The Tank Corps and Tank Brigades January 1942 to 1945, George F. Nafziger: 1995.
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: The Battle of Kursk. University of Kansas Press: United States, 1999.
Zamulin, Valeriy: The Battle of Kursk. Controversial and neglected Aspects. Helion & Company: England, 2017.
Zetterling, Niklas; Frankson, Anders: KURSK 1943 - A Statistical Analysis
Glantz, David M.: Colossus Reborn. The Red Army at War, 1941-1943. University Kansas Press: Kansas, US, 2005
Töppel, Roman: Kursk - Mythen und Wirklichkeit einer Schlacht. In: Vierteljahreszeitschrift für Zeitgeschichte 3/2009, Oldenbourg: 2009. S. 349-384
tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013...
tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015...
#Kursk #Tactics #RedArmy
German: "That mine is mine" Russian: "Oh, yeah? No, it's mine. But ok, what's mine is yours"
Was that pun intentional?
@@GAtTheTop No, that pun was not intentional. I planned it all along beforehand.
Edigy hilarious.
Socialism at work
What's mine is mine too
My grandma, may the Lord be with her, took part in this battle being a 17 y. o. girl. She was a radio officer in the Red Army's engineering battalion. After the battle only 16 persons including her had survived out of the whole battalion.
Dang thats super insane. Did you ever get to meet her and hear any interesting stories?
Both of my grandpas were at Kursk , as a red army soldiers . One got killed . Another made it . He told me it was the battle on grandiose scale. So much fire power was used ,the ground was shaking and sounds defining. The Hell on Earth !
@@jacksonpalmer8955 she actually raised me up
@@anatolyex yup. She was telling me the same, recalling the moments in her memory. This was bloody hell. Nothing like this before and after.
Kursk Casualties, 170,000 Russian, 50,000 German Including counterattack: 860,000 Russian, 200,000 German GLORIOUS SOVIET VICTORY
My grandfather commanded a machine gun crew during that battle. He went all the way from Almaty, Kazakhstan and joined the fight in Voronezh in march 1943. He passed away in 2008. He met the end of war at Elba river near Prague. Great video 👍
Hero
@@strafniki1080 Thank you )
@@lampshade5449 Prague? Thats capital of my country Czech Republic. Real hero tho❤️
Ardennes 1940: they'll never expect us to attack here, so we'll roll their flank and completely cut them off. Kursk 1943: they're expecting us to attack here and have built massive defence in depth; let's attack them anyway. Pretty stark difference, isn't it?
I also love how the germans tried to go through the ardennes again in 1944 with the battle of the bulge. With bigger tanks that didn't have as much room to move and also icy conditions in the winter like even tiger1 ones were slipping in the icy conditions. Not only that fuel shortages and only a small window of bad weather to work with until the weather cleared and allied fight bombers were given the green light to bomb those panzers. Also the fact that our American Allies rallied and were able to get to get support from Pattons forces in few days was impressive. Also the real funny thing was the combat engineers destroying bridges it angered the Germans a lot as it caused them to detour and expend what precious fuel they had lmao.Just funny how what worked once before may not work again lmao.
the direction of the main attack was unknown
@@yagdtigercommander in Crusade in Europe I read that Ike, Bradley, and Patton were conferring on the situation as early as 2 weeks prior. Patton had already attached a battalion of 10th armor to Bastogne, probably to hold the southern approaches + he could always say he was trying to rescue His Boys if Monty objected to any move on his part. He DID say we should let them go all the way to Paris, etc. Ike nixed that as politically unsound. The ? remains; did SHAEF know where and more importantly WHEN the Germans would attack? Or was this simply astute contingency planning? He doesn't say definitely, but it's interesting to speculate.
@@gulfrelay2249 Yes I was just getting at how doing a similar style attack that work earlier may or may not work again. Also without a doubt some commanders knew a counter attack would or at least were aware that Germans still had the capacity to do so. However the Majority of US Forces weren't thinking the Germans would. As in 1944 it was the quieter winter period in Europe well at least that what the allies thought. As bad snowy icy and windy conditions are not ideal for an offensive from attackers typically. So they it was quiet and isolated from the front a place for wounded veteran troops to recover and new recruits to train. However The Germans saw it as a prime opportunity to retake the narrative of the war in their favour. And with Allied airpower grounded from bad weather it was ideal to make a quick counter attack. But the big issue was the German lack resources and even skilled troops to an extent. Also they had way heavier panzers now that had to be careful when crosses bridges to as not every bridge was meant support the weight of a Tiger 1 or Tiger 2 so they had to plan their routes accordingly and with limit fuel it was a challenge. But 1940 they had smaller faster panzers that used less fuel and they had the resources and man power. So yes the germans had better tech but they couldn't use it to its full potential and often had to abandon the equipment due to breakdowns or lack of supplies. Also weather conditions did not help the Panzers either. With frozen roads sliding out of control at times or getting stuck in thick snow.
Drew Thatcher yeah WW2 was just chock-full of clusterfucks of decision making that was very head-scratching. Also many many instances where sheer luck caused the turn of the tide of the war for one side or the other.
Hitler to Model: Okay this is gonna be pretty difficult, but once we get past the first 20 km it should be smooth sailing. Other 90km of defences: *Allow us to introduce ourselves*
RandomTomatoSoup This is pretty much the whole Eastern Front in a nutshell
@@nguyenminh8240 That's legit. Stalin and Lenin lines can confirm that. The only reason they did not work as they were supposed to was Blitzkrieg. Same thing is for the Maginot Line. Stalin line was a bit more successful, providing successful defense during the battle of Kiev for months. Plus, it was far less obvious and did not scream "I AM A DEFENSE LINE!" in their attackers' faces.
@@yevheniishyshko7961 The Germans had patrols and aerial recon
@@partygrove5321 they were less effective than the russian ones because this area was protected by the russian air force.
@@antoinemozart243 if Hitler had kept his ass out of the war room altogether and let his generals run the show like Stalin did with zuhikov. Then they would've attacked much sooner and well before the soviet defense lines had been formed. But nope they listened to him again and waited until they had more panzer reserves before assaulting the positions. Man wasn't he great at making decisions. Bet the sixth army at stalingrad would agree. Such a brilliant commander.
I love that the ant tank mines illustrated @ 5:36 look like lego pieces, cause everyone knows walking though a pile of legos is like walking through a mine field.
Oh god, I didn't notice. Wonder if that's intentional
Lol
It is the regular manner to show a minefields
What yall think mines are made off? Explosives well hidden in the ground? M8 they're legos!
Incorrect. I can walk barefoot over a mine field.
Honestly I'm insanely impressed you took the time at the end to specify that any errors are your own errors and no one elses, very refreshing to see people actually take responsibility for somethig
Typically German imho. I'm not German btw.
This is what academics usually do
Boss shit
if he doesnt someone will lol
Isaac Vasquez agreed.
When you have a lot of money in a tower defense game
Those bloons never stood a chance.
@@manictiger Hahah, I see someone is a fan of that as well! Edit: Though, those Camo Lead Bloons were a nuisance!
A lot of POWs*
@@gregoriysharapov1936 What about camo regrow reds
> When you have a lot of money in a tower defense game quite the opposite. When you have limit resources you have to outskill the enemy
if anyone is interested. I recently read Soviet manuals for tactical officers of the 1950s and 1960s, which are still being studied. I was very surprised by the fact that all the techniques in them are real examples from World War 2. Most often in 1944-1945, but also in 1941-1943. Those. these are records of real battles and analysis of them for the purpose of teaching a lesson. Back in that book in the preface, it was said in plain text that "we were very bad in tactics in 1941, but the war forced us to change, and now this book so that there would not be a second 1941." Very interesting reading for the fuck like me. For every possible situation a real example of a good experience was found there.
Really buddy, where did you get them in English?
I would also love to get my hands on this book you mentioned!
Any chance of posting a link?😎✌
There's a book called the Partisans Companion which was a book given to Soviet civilians and militias on tactics to fight a superior foe, good read, there could be other such books in English..
I remember reading a quote from a german general, let me paraphrase: "The soviets are no longer the paesants we fought in 1941. They have learned the craft of war, and they learned it from us" Dated 42 or 43
My grandfather was killed in Kursk battle. He was a machine gun operator. When I visited those places (actual place of death is unknown) about 40 years later, one could pick a piece of shrapnel every step in the open field.
@Phil Hall He was a machine gun operator. According to the letters received, he was likely killed very soon after deployment, possibly in his first battle.
Even a modern army would struggle through those defensive lines....an anti-tank mine is no joke
0TheMrPhucked0 .....not if it’s tracks are disabled by mines, than artillery could finish it off, modern air support would definitely help I admit
Modern army can quickly clear a path through minefield for tanks: kzhead.info/sun/lNhwmJt_gmqvga8/bejne.html
@@BamBamBigelow.. Yeah, anti-tank mine detection and removal systems are very very high tech now. A minefield is an annoyance for a modern army but not a hindrance.
@0TheMrPhucked0 so you're saying it's tracks and sensors would remain intact? Are you sure?
@0TheMrPhucked0 until it hit the first mine and loose a track and get hammered by artillery.
Soviet doctrine be like: "yo dawg! I heard you like frontlines, so i put a frontline, in your frontline, in your frontline!"
matryoshka time
Well, that's defense in depth for you. It wasn't something used exclusively by the Soviets, or even invented by them. I mean, it's an evolution of the defensive systems of WW1.
Oh god oh frick why is there so many frontlines this is not an epic gamer momento
@@podemosurss8316 IMO it is also just common sense. If you're going against a major German offensive, you create an in-depth defense.
@@WheelsRCool Well, usually common sense is difficult to be found in the battlefield. But yeah, plus it's the same tactic they used in Moscow and it worked.
Lol like how you mentioned the artillery only hoi4 meme.
At what time?
9:55
@@kassthered8452 ^
Schmidty yeah me too
@@kassthered8452 thank you :D
Its amazing how the Soviets got their act together by the summer of 43! We can argue about "turning points" all day, but I'd say Kursk demonstrated without a doubt the Red Army was ready to haul themselves across Eastern Europe. I hope to cover Kursk myself in a future video.
@Pasha Staravoitau как говориться, у каждого хорошего врача- свое кладбище... даже не хочется думать, во сколько обходится один хороший полководец...
@@user-xg6yq8rh6n Так или иначе он обходится куда меньше посредственного политика.
@@Manuel_Fal_Conde ваша мысль понятна... лишь уточню, что между политиком и государственным деятелем- огромная разница. н2 политиком не был...
Germany choose totally wrong coutry to teach it tactics and strategy. Japan Empire wasn't happy after it too.
@@user-xg6yq8rh6n Это идиотская поговорка про врача. Есть лучше: дурак учится на своих ошибках, умный - на чужих. Хорошие врачи получаются после лет работы под руководством и присмотром других хороших врачей.
"Even after the war [General Breith - III Panzer Corps] was convinced that the III Panzer Corps had actually achieved the operational breakthrough [---] *In truth, the corps had only penetrated the second Soviet army defence line.*" I think this highlights the problem with so many history books dealing with the Eastern Front that heavily rely on testimonies from German generals given after the war. Even generals misunderstand conditions, especially in failure, understanding what happened will be very difficult to get to unless you carefully compare accounts and the circumstances these accounts were formed in.
Exactly so. This is a great video and so far, the best one I have seen on the subject. It's also worth mentioning that most people spend inordinate amounts of time talking about the Tiger v T-34 or the exploits of the Ferdinand.. This is invariably at the expense of a rational discussion of how the Red Army defences and tactics managed to separate the German tanks from the infantry.
Excellent point. Memoirs are subjective and are written in order to present the author in a better light (not necessarily consciously). The Western people tend to rely mainly on the German side, so it draws a distorted picture.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Very distorted. I am currently trying to find information on Operation Spring Awakening, one of the bigger armoured clashes of the war and the last major one. The only information I can find so far goes something like this: the Germans advanced between the two lakes and pushed the Red Army back. They drove a wedge 30 kilometres deep through the Red Army lines. Then it ends. No mention of how the Red Army managed to win a crushing victory over the Germans. They just went away. I actually have found out now the basics of what happened but you have to push a long way through to find it. You get all this stuff about what the Germans did and nothing about what the Red Army did, despite the fact that they won. The only videos I've seen on KZhead just stop when the Germans started getting hit. The battle just kind of ends. But the fact is that the 6th SS Panzer Army were decimated. They lost so much materiel that Dietrich said of them, "It's appropriate that we're called the 6th because we only have six tanks left." They received such a drubbing that it led to "The Armband Order". As you can see, information on the Germans is easy to find.
@@thethirdman225 It's going to get better at a certain stage. The Russian MOD has recently declassified a massive corpus of documents, and moreover - scanned them and made them available online. Russian researchers call this development no less than am "archival revolution". I guess sooner or later someone will get to this topic, research it and publish something, although it is surely going to take some time to have it available in English. Language barrier is a tough obstacle. It's probably surprising for people who are not directly involved that there are still many blind spots in the history of WW2. Researchers (such as Valery Zamulin) are still digging up new info on the Battle of Kursk, despite it being one of the most prominent battles of the war and it seems like it should be extremely well-researched.
@@CrazyArcher2160 Exactly. The unfortunate thing about Kursk is that it was just so big and most of the discussion circulates around Prokhorovka. That was a decisive German victory in a large scale battle they lost. People talk about Tigers vs T-34s and kill ratios without ever mentioning the outcomes or the fact that the push failed. No wonder people are confused.
glad to see that artillery only is not dead
Приятно видеть, что хоть кто-то из англоговорящих, при обсуждении восточного фронта оперирует документами, а не сказками про "генерал Мороз", "Одна винтовка на двоих", "Заградотряды" и т.д. Уверенный лайк, спасибо!
Судя по акценту он немец)
Ара, адин винтовка бил ! Ашотик взяль, потом ми с Джамшутом за ним. Правду гаварю слющай, так и биль :) ! А ещё злёй замполит с писталет за нами бижаль ! Ругалься !
@@user0x015 это понятно. Тем не менее, представитель западной стороны
@@mr.tusetsky7737 ури, ури!
Среди англоговорящих тоже есть безграмотные в истории, коих в России абсолютное большинство. На Курской дуге немцы, будучи в меньшинстве, потеряли 1280 ед бронетехники, СССР потерял 6064 ед. И из подобной статистики складывается вся «великая победа».
Soviet sappers moving Germans mines. This would explain the first day on the northern attack the Ferdinands ran into their own minefield and were delayed half a day.
I remember a Soviet veteran saying they would dig up and reuse the German mines because these were much more reliable and safer than the Soviet-made mines, which had a slight tendency to detonate when being dug-in!
@@Wien1938 Imagine the amount Soviet soldiers who died digging up German mines that would later be used by their army against the Germans.
@Roughman Sure, antitank mines aren't dangerous. However, digging up landmines meant for soldiers was still dangerous. Just look at the amount of captured German soldiers who died digging up mines in Denmark after WW2, and alot of those minefields were mapped and the number of mines were counted. I doubt that they had the luxury to do that on the eastern front. And knowing how willing the soviet army was to spend lives, I wouldn't be surprised the casualties were higher.
TBH the Ferdinands would still be delayed anyway
German: "That mine is mine" Russian: "Oh, yeah? No, it's mine. But ok, it's yours if you can find it. What's mine is yours"
This guy's material seems solid. He cites David Glantz, the current academic authority on the Eastern Front. Also, hearing a guy with a thick German accent detailing historic German military failures adds a lot of great flavor! Keep up the great work!
Yeah tik does good stuff as well
I do not trust Glantz by half. The casualties he cutes are often quite impossible, especially tge low number of German losses at Kursk. Actually I dont trust any US hitorian nor German in any of this, and I dont trust 90% of the Russian ones either.
@@PewPewPlasmagunAnyone with half a brain would know these are estimates no one person could possibly know for certain how many people died in such a huge battle in such a chaotic time.
@@PewPewPlasmagun Glanz is just one of a number of different sources. Part of historical research is to garner as much material as you can before drawing any conclusions and Bernhard does this. The worst part about Glanz is that his writing style is so dry it’s very difficult to read.
Sees defence lines. Panzer starts sweating profusely
@Mahatma Gandhi thing had happen cannot be changed.
Mahatma Gandhi or rather “start a war you cant win, be delusional, throw overpriced toys at an enemy until your economy lies in shambles, roll in war crimes like a pig and then lose the WW2.”
@Mahatma Gandhi ==Probably because he's low on ammunition from killing all those rusty little soviets throughout Barbarossa .Keep throwing your own shit at the meat grinder till it jams ,classic communist doctrine lol .== Keep throwing your money into someone else's meat grinder until it grinds millions, a classic capitalist doctrine.
IRONIE INCOMMING btw yes. Not counting allies of Germany in WW2 losses is a scummy move employed by the reichofags to present their losses smaller then they were. While all those allies fought under command of german officers and should be presented as losses of the vermacht in general.
Darklysm its funny how reichofags defend a failed state that not only lost the war but couldnt even hope to win it in the first place but still started it out of delusion.
9:35 Digging out and laying Nazi's OWN mines is sooo badass
Yes. But did the 2 sides utilize captured enemy weapons, supplies and trucks? It makes sense to me to use my enemies weapons against him but I've never read of it happening.
The Bersaglieri also did it with the British mines in Africa during 1942.
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal: paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv Be sure to check out the companion video with Dr. Roman Töppel here: kzhead.info/sun/jLupYa2XsXmboq8/bejne.html
A battle of mind boggling amount of mechanization.
Not too mention the incredible number of guns and rocket launchers--20,000+ for the Sovs.
A literal land of minefields. God, I hate mines.
I see your strategy comrade Popovski, but what if they break through our defense line? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line! But what if they break through that defense line too? We put another defense line!
When you think about it, the Soviet battle plan for Kursk could be considered a real-life example of the 'Xanatos Gambit'.
Germans: We are masters of concentrated panzer breakthrough! Soviets: This isn't even my final denfese belt!
Be sure to check out the companion video with Dr. Roman Töppel here: kzhead.info/sun/jLupYa2XsXmboq8/bejne.html
Still reading the book, like it. Well written (and translated as I read the English version),
English version is the best version due to better footnotes & colored maps.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes the maps are really helpful, I have made some post-it's to easier access them as I constantly study the maps as I read. I really got some good insights regarding the build-up to the battle (Only read 1/4 so far). It seems to be well researched.
Brother can you tell me from where i can buy your books i would love to read them
@cobra Scorpio they are all linked in the description.
I’m in the middle of doing a research paper on Kursk so this could not be better timed lol
I recently saw a series of videos about Kursk by Russian historian. It's in Russian but subtitles are availiable. You'll find more on the channel. I hope, it helps you with your research. kzhead.info/sun/pL58pMOyfZOqfmg/bejne.html
@@arturbaluyev2873 замулин исследует эту тему двадцать лет
The best info on this are the books from Zamulin and A.Isaev,nothing else.
@@panzerpatriot4920 исаев с более-менее общих позиций рассматривает... а замулин копает вглубь... едва ли не "насквозь" )
@@user-xg6yq8rh6n да,согласен.
A most clear and comprehensive explanation. If this was any other doc I would see over half an hour of dribble and inaccurate hyperbole.
6:00 - Cooperation meant that all anti-tank guns targeted the same German tank. Once that tank was destroyed, all fires shifted to a single new German tank. This method was much more successful compared to the previous method of allowing each anti-tank gun to target a German tank that it had individually selected.
One of your best Bernhard, great visualizations!
As always a brilliantly produced video. Thank you.
such a quality channel, I always leap with joy when the notification if your uploads arrive. great work!!
We Call that german Qualität
@@xxx6797 he is an Austrian
I just wish his accent wasn't so god awful. So many sentences are mumbled and words are lost if not for the text visualizing the relevant parts. If this was an audio file only, I would have a hard time following half the stuff he goes through.
@@krunske Yes, he hes a tinsy vinsy eccent. Good work though. 😉
This was a very effective breakdown on Soviet tactics at Kursk. Very good and impressive. More clear than ever that Manstein was right to insist on the EARLY assault not waiting 3 months.
I don't think so. I mean, these tactics had been used since late 1941. Like he said when talking about "blitzkrieg", this is evolution, not revolution.
They attack earlier and then what? Worse supply lines and logistics.
@@misterscienceguy And the lack of Tigers and Panthers. Again, against hordes of T-34. The delivering of those last German tanks was the main reason why the offensive was delayed.
Vlad Drakul it`s clear that you are wrong , just as Meinstein was. If you read and understand what Guderian suggest to Hitler, you will see it. `Why attack this year on Kursk , or even more, on the Eastern front` ?? -second: Even if were Germans attack when Meinstein suggest , Soviet build already more than 20km in depth. Distance that they can not break through even later with much stronger forces. 3rd: Meinstein did`t know , that Soviets have 2 armies in reserve already. One of them tank army. ( Glantz). And we already seen , that Meinstein could not break through at Stalingrad to relise Paulus 6th army , were soviets have not fortifide positions. As I said at Kursk , they were wait with already fortifide over 20km in depth, at time Meinstein suggest attack with much weaker forces. Guderian have right , they should not attack that year on Eastern front , they have no chance to win in 1943 anymore. That chance for Germans have gone.
If he had gone early, his tanks would have been bogged in the mud from the Rasputitsa.
I've watched quite a few of your uploads and only just realised when this popped up that I'd not subscribed. Sorted now! Love the research involved and I never fail to learn from them.
Your voice and accent have the ability to calm me down like nothing else. I always open one of your videos when I'm nervous.
Me too ! It steadies my hands when I am reloading
Check out long5hot, he’s a War Thunder KZheadr (no longer active tho) and his voice is extremely relaxing as well
Who doesn't like Austrian Sensor Meridian Response? (A.S.M.R.) :)
austrian voices talking about artillery and tank divisions has the exact opposite effect for me.
@@Sir_Godz By 'opposite', do you mean as in " Military History Visualized just uploaded, Who Needs Sleep? :) "
I made a short dissertation about the Battle of Kursk a couple of years ago for my Military History class. I wish I had these sources back then!
I am from Russia and I can say that this is a very good video. Of course, there are some inaccuracies. For example, our Mobile Obstacle Detachment was also called “sassy mining”.In addition, an incendiary bottle is incorrectly drawn on the diagram, because the "Tiger" could not be amazed at it. He had special means on the body, which diverted the combustible mixture into special containers.
Да, это из-за специфической реализации преодоления водных преград, МТО частично затапливалось. Но к Курску в частях уже были РПГ-43, хотя до их использования по прямому назначению доходило редко.
@@TheSunchaster что такое МТО? И причём оно тут вообще, я говорил про нахальное минирование. Если вы не из России и подразумевали опорный пункт, то у нас он называется "ПТОП". Вообще в боях под Курском ещё продолжали использовать РПГ-40, да и противотанковые ружья тоже были не редкостью, как и было сказано в ролике. К слову именно для защиты от противотанковых ружей немецкие танки оснащались тонкими бронепластинами на башне и бортах корпуса.
@@dmitriibyrin5405 такое ощущение, что я субтитры для непонятно кого делал. МТО - моторно-трансмиссионное отделение "In addition, an incendiary bottle..." - здесь про бутылку с зажигательной смесью. ПТР Тигра никак не пробивает, кроме поражения смотровых приборов и т. п.
@@TheSunchaster Извиняюсь, я не совсем понял, что там частично затапливалось, поэтому подумал о своём. Про пробитие Тигра ПТР я ни слова не говорил, на него экраны и не вешались по вышеуказанным причинам.
@@TheSunchaster прекрасные титры
Interesting and informative video History, I always wondered how the Soviets stopped the Axis at Kursk and now I know. Well done mate.
no you don't the Soviets stopped the axis by sheer power: bring 2.5 times as many troops too the battle as your enemy isnt a "special defence tactic"
@@tommyjacobi2054 nonsense
@@tommyjacobi2054 True the biggest reason the soviets won the war
Absolutely beautiful, amazing work.
Although the details are pretty tedious they're necessary in the study of military history and it's good to see it featured here. Well-done vid, keep up the good work.
I have always said that the battle of Kursk was a battle of attrition where artillery and mines played a huge role (mortars : the red army had twenty more mortars than the Germans).
Excellent! Thank you very much!Greetings from the Czech republic.
Awesome video! Enjoyed it very much!
Thanks for the research and the video topic!
“U” in “Kursk” reads like in words “bull” or “cool”, not like in word “curb”!! And thanks for great job and detailed analysis of the battle!!
Why do you pronounce "bull" as "bool"? Where are you from?
@@SepticFuddy I’m from Russia, originally. Why? And I didn’t say that “u” in bull is pronounced exactly the same way as in word cool (or bool” if it does exist). Read again my first message, please.
Thank you for presenting the bare fact of the Russian defence in depth. Your accuracy regarding changes in unit formation was spot on. I would like to hear more lectures on the Eastern Front. Thank you for producing a sharp video presentation.
Wow!.......I had no idea how incredible the defending organization was in the Battle of Kursk. I had thought it was mostly armor on armor. Great Video!
I recommend David Glantz's book on Kursk it gives detailed information on the offensive itself and the Soviet offensive as well. I found amazing how far the Germans and Sovietd were willing to push a division to utter depletion. I also find it amazing how intense the defense was.
I can also recommend "The Battle of Kursk: Controversial and Neglected Aspects" by Valeriy Zamulin.
Thats called a war for survival, you have no option but to win at all costs. Britian and america have an ocean between them and germany. The soviets had only their army.
Glanz is too dry and hard to read.
Thats how panzers were stopped: In the Soviet Union summer 1943 tanks line up in thousands as far the eye can see. Ready for the onslaught, ready for the fight, waiting for the axis to march into a trap. Mines are placed in darkness in the cover of the night waiting to be triggered when the time is right. Imminent invasion, imminent attack. Once the battle started there's no turning back. Fields of Prokhorovka where the heat of battle burned suffered heavy losses and the tide of war was turned. Driving back the Germans fighting on four fronts, hunt them out of Russia out of Soviet land. Reinforce the front line, force the axis to retreat. Send in all the reserves securing their defeat.
Oh Mother Russia union of land. Once more victorious, the Red Army stands.
@DeutschwehR Those are rookie numbers Fritz, i expected you to say 25 of yours to 100384743k for ours but ok. Hello from Kaliningrad btw ;)
@DeutschwehR Exactly, and the fact is that we won that battle, we won that war. I am pointing it out because comrade Vasiliy, just quoted a famous song about that battle that you argued by bringing the number of casualties for tanks.(which is not accurate numbers imo) "You" were fighting good, as our veterans usually say "Fritz was not stupid at all, he knew what he was doing".And it makes our victory even more glorious. You had advantage on numbers in the beginning of the war, and the fact that it was sudden attack, at least 60% of our air force was destroyed in the first day by bombing air bases, made it even harder for us to recover. And we were not fighting only you Fritz, but Mario, Janos, Sergio, Alphonse among many others. I know it might hurt feelings for a patriot to acknowledge the fact of the defeat, but remember that it was you who came to our house with a race war, calling us subhumans, calling to destroy and whipe out of history everything that is related to our history. So please, next time try not to be butthurt about our victory, and keep it in mind that it is all history now.We need to look to the future in order not to repeat such events for our future generations.
@DeutschwehR 1.USSR was not fighting only "tiny Germany" but Italy,Hungary, Bulgaria,Romania,French division,Soanish Divisions and etc. 2.From 1941-late 1942, we were 1 on 1.Europe against USSR.in this timescale u had only one 1 front to fight and it was against us.Lend lease (that was 7% of our production) didnt even come till late 1942 when USSR broke the backbone of the Wehrmacht already at Stalingrad. 3.Western pig capitalist indeed was the one who created Nazi germany and pushed it towards USSR.Go see which countries bankers was financing your heavy industry, go and learn who let you to annex austria, Checzslovakia,who didnt atack you when you were in Poland. Those western monkeys was watching from the safe distance how tigers was fighting and killing each other, and the moment one of us finished the other one, they was going to atack and eliminate both of us.Smart plan haha.But they didnt calculate something.They didnt expect us to be that powerfull.We were still so powerful in 1945 that Churchill didnt have balls to lauch operation "Unthinkable" (Go read about that and educate yourself) So im not gonna share anything with anyone, we had no friends, western imperialist was our enemy since the establishment of USSR. 4.28-30 million is the civilian casualties as well.It was because of your gencodie to our nation, in a mass scale in the areas that was occupied by you from 1941 to 1943. Red army lost 9 million soldier approximately.You lost 7 -8 million soldiers.If we will consider Italian Hungarian Romanian casualties as well, k/d ratio was 1-1.5 at best.
@DeutschwehR cool western propaganda shit! OK
Excelent video! Many thanks. Soviet artillery was indeed very good. And considering that a big part of the German tanks in Kursk were still Pz III, it was somehow easy for the Soviet long 45mm AT gun to counter them. And I think their regimental 76mm guns could also fire at tanks. Could you make a video like this one about the tactical combats in the Caucasus, Military History Visualized? I heard that there were many interesting battles over the mountains there and also in river crossings when Kleist tried to reach Grozny.
The regimental 76mm gun was a "multi-purpose" gun that could either act as light artillery or as anti-tank armament if necesary: it used the same ammo of the F-34. In Kursk the Soviet used the 45mm 53k and the 57mm ZiS-2, which could pierce any tank.
@@podemosurss8316 yes, the Pz IV was also as vulnerable as the Pz III, at least from the side. There were, perhaps, very few Tiger and Panthers tanks at Kursk also. So these would not pose any problem to the AT artillery gunners. The only exception would have been the Ferdinand battle ram, but those were left without infantry cover pretty easy by the same artillery we speak to be put out by molotov cocktails then.
@Stugbit Fz The Panther wasn't invulnerable to the ZiS-2, and the Tiger wasn't either. And even the Ferdinand isn't inmune to a direct hit by a 122m howitzer.
@@podemosurss8316 Yes, the Panther had a weak armor as well, specially in the sides, and the version in Kursk was full of shot traps, flaws, things like that. But Ferdinand was a bit more complicated, many smaller guns couldn't handle him. It was meant to use it's front armor which I think even a 12cm gun would have had problems to get throught, at least from far away. Anyway, the machine was not used properly at Kursk.
Stugbit Fz I was thinking on the 152mm howitzer, IDK why I wrote 12mm (I correct to 122mm). Anyway, direct hit by Soviet heavy howitzer = you're screwed.
Thank you so much this helped me a lot with my report :)
simply Superb video.....Many thanks to you Sir. Keep up the good work! Cheers!
One of the major points that was missed in the video is following: soviets managed to build up several month worth the amount of artillery shells, while the frontlines were relatively stable. When you see a talk about artillery soviets had, people often miss that the amount of munition they had was limited (in 1942 extremely limited). Plus it is worth mention that soviet artillery was lighter than german, so the number of guns without caliber comparisson and the amount of munition amassed is quite useless. With artillery and aviation it' not the amount of guns or aircrafts that matter, but the total mass of the munition fired and bombs dropped. In the battle of Kursk SU had achieved parity in those numbers with TR, while exceeding germans in manpower. In Blau and Stalingrad SU fired had ~2 times less munition, while exceeding AGS ~2 times in manpower, thus firing 3-4 times less munition per person. I believe it would've been nice for MHV to make a direct comparisson in that area, because it is easily understandable once visualised.
Hey, do you have sources for all of this? I would like to know more!
Good analysis. Plus the Soviets didn't have as many SPGs as the Germans had. All those SiG-33s, Wespes, Hummels was a pain in the ass.
Ценное замечание. Химическая промышленность у немцев в первой половине войны на голову превосходила нашу. И ключевой параметр - производство пороха, без которого война невозможно. До 43 года дневной расход снарядов у немцев на одно орудие мог быть больше на порядок, что является одним из ключевых параметров успешной обороны/наступления. Многие люди думают, что стоит захотеть какому-нибудь генералу провести операцию послезавтра, то он просто достаёт из неведомых запасов танки, авиацию и артиллерию и командует "В атаку!". На самом деле же это война ресурсов, а необходимые запасы топлива, пороха и провизии для летних кампаний заготавливались многие месяцы перед ними. А также было необходимо оценить обеспеченность противника данными ресурсами.
@@crowleyj_g54 You made some really unique comments, especially the one about the six foot dick!
almost always, the Nazis had a numerical superiority the situation was corrected only at the end of the war . I am surprised by the stories about the comparative losses and the advantage in manpower of the Russian troops Chief of staff of the 17th army corps of the Wehrmacht, major General Hans Derr. In his book "the March on Stalingrad", he gives the following data for August 1942: According to the Eastern army division of the OKH intelligence Agency, by mid-August 1942. Russia had the following forces: 407 rifle divisions, equal to 287 German 178 rifle brigades, equal to 142 German 39 cavalry divisions, equal to 33 German divisions 165 tank brigades, equal to 63 German A total of 789 units, equal to 593 German units 1 division of the red army is not equal to 1 division of Germany
The curious thing about Kursk is German panzer doctrine was to avoid strong points yet at Kursk the panzers are used like battering rams against prepared positions with predictable results. It supports Dr Toppel's point that at that time the idea that massed high quality tanks could overcome prepared defences had gained support but this is really an infantry role. That experiment failed.
The panzers did still try to avoid strongpoints when possible. But the Soviet defence was set up so that neighbouring strongpoints would fire into the weak side armour of German tanks trying to slip through a gap
Once your enemy knows what you're doing,hope he uses lube
Positionally Kursk salient is one of the weakest positions in entire Russia front line
@@tructre1980 not really. Rzhev was weaker, but germans dont want to sart new meat grinder here
Deine Videos sind echt der Hammer! Weiter so!
Well done! I remember first learning about the Battle of Kursk back in the 70s when I read the book The Tigers Are Burning by Martin Caiden when I was in high school. I still recommend the book to those who might want or need an introduction to the battle.
It’s crazy to think that whether someone survived or not depended on which defense line they put you in. Many battalions in the first defense lines (800 - 1100 men) were complete annihilated
Mode "Urrraaa!!!" activated.
Chiki brikki
Mow2 ?
CoH2
Mode "Rush B" activated
along with Mode C2H5OH
Thanks for this!
Very useful information here. The description of Division strength between a 1941 and a 1943 Division was interesting info to know.
Damn, right before Steel division 2 come out. Now I can have a new fighting scenario with my friends.
I love the way he said Panzer 6 Tiger in German. In English it sounds like Panzerkampfwagon (sp) Sex Tiger. Which would be an amazing name for a tank.
lol! :D
Hitler's secret party tiger..
@@A_L_E_G_S If only the panther was model 6, if it was it would also share a name with the best cologne from Anchorman which is Sex Panther; made with bits of real panther!
@@jona.scholt4362 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You guys do a good job. I follow you for a year, now i subbed.
Awesome video. Enjoyed watching it. :)
In combat mission red thunder, (combat mission, very Good series of realistic armchair general games.) I find it already difficult to cross across 1 AT position without proper artillery to take it out, this Sovjet defences.. Jesus christ how can anyone ever break through that. (I know it is a game, still it made me realise it is more difficult then it seems to be in charge of a company.) Imagine being a general and have the task to cross it, the mines, AT positions artillery. Impossible
I use real life tactics in realistic strategy video games. It is really fun when you're playing against your friend and most of his troops die because of your artillery and mortal strikes without you even knowing exactly where he is. Strategy games are like chess. Only better.
Like real life if you don't spot you shoot blind. case in point D-Day shelled for ours and 2500 killed by 2 machine guns. Utah beach different the paratroopers took out the German artillery contrary the allies the Germans had the area properly referenced. In Vietnam Australian patrol bases had mapped reference points for the artillery. Result at Long Tan a company had a decisive victory against a NVA Regiment.
Look at Eisenhower exactly what he did at Omaha Beach the MG 42's run out of spare barrels if you land 156000 men 2500 losses is acceptable.
9:56 The Soviets had learnt the lessons from WW1, in which the Russian army lost important battles due to the superior German artillery, so they decided they needed to have more and better artillery than anybody else. And, through some people give more importance to the tanks today when talking about WW2, most casualties (70%~80%) were made by artillery: tanks were an useful weapon for breaking the enemy lines and encircling, but it was the artillery what dealt the sufficient atrittion and the constant butcher in the front. Also, not even a Tiger was safe from a direct hit by the heaviest howitzers.
It was also due to an Russian tactic, called artillery - god of war
@@aneesh2115 Well, not just Russian. I mean, Napoleon himself had said "God favours the side with the best artillery".
@@aneesh2115 peoples in the world depletes to 2 categoties: artillery crew and their targets
Great video, there is so much information in your videos, that is awesome. 👍 we will take a lot of them for our future hobby project's. Btw can you do a little bit more in depth about the Russo Japanese border conflict prior to ww2?
Fritz: Hans! I thought we destroyed that tank, why is it still firing at us? Hans: That's a new one Fritz, and there are 2 new ones on the side!
By having ultra fixed defensive positions that had multiple layers and mobile reserves. Germans should have attacked months earlier or not at all
This template was also used during november 1941, and to defeat the counteroffensive of late 1942 so, not really.
Dumbass
Podemos URSS I think he's referring to the Germans postponing the attack on the Kursk by a few months to build up Tiger and Panther numbers, not them postponing Barbarossa to stabilize the Balkans. He's saying they should have skipped out on building up their tank forces and attacked the salient earlier. He may actually have a point, since the vast majority of tank destruction at Kursk was caused by mines, anti-tank guns, and reliability faults. That being said, even if the Germans had won at Kursk (which is still doubtful) they would have been stopped in winter and the battle would only postpone the inevitable.
Dlüph Scheißemlok He said earlier, not later.
Better not at all
If you really want to learn a lot more about the details, here are my recommendations for reading. Zamulin's first two books offer a great deal of detail from the Soviet archives. I did not read his third book. He is a Soviet cheerleader at times but he discusses their failures and mistakes. Nipe's book offers so much detail on the German side. It was very interesting to read the German orders issued each night. They thought they were breaking through only to find more Soviet defenses. The 48th Panzer Corps' performance was really quite poor. Toeppel's book offers a lot of detail on the German planning. Very eye opening. Operation Ponyri has a very narrow focus but is excellent. Enigma only made a minor contribution. The Soviets had plenty of spies.
замулина перевели на английский?
@@user-xg6yq8rh6n да, и на венгерский
diceroller555 , good
As usual, an incredibly informative video. Your detailed description of the Soviet defenses makes it clear how the Soviets won the battle, and even make me wonder if it were in any way possible for the Germans to have defeated them. Truly formidable (unbreakable?) defensive fortifications and force deployments.
Wow, great video!
And to think I've read so many books concerning the battle of Kursk (including Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk" and the Soviet General Staff study of the battle edited also by Glantz) and you gave a 12 minute concise summary. Well done. 👍
Nice general view, thanks for work. But some details should be mentioned for full picture: - By the time of this battle solved artillery shells shortage problems. - БМ-13, one of the scariest things for troops in ww2 imo. Not good against tanks though. - Superior reconaissance by soviet union. Also this battle was the introduction of СМЕРШ, soviet counterespionage group.
BM-13 was excellent against medium tanks and armored vehcles such as Pzkpfw IV,III and any armored car. Only against heavy Panzers such as Tiger and Panther it useless.
Good analysis! Thank you!
Great presentation.
To answer your question: "they knew they were coming ". Simple
Months ahead of time and the Soviets didn't waste it. Not to mention this is no longer the German army with all their veterans in 1941-1942 and the Red Army trying to get its shit together in those years. The state of the Red Army in 1943 was simply too much for the Germans by this point.
Answer, make the Germans run out of ammo. Just look at the casualties of the battle.
Very well done, superb!
Well done! 👍🏻
Guderian says "Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?" Hitler replied, "I know. The thought of it turns my stomach." Guderian concluded, "In that case your reaction to the problem is the correct one. Leave it alone." Hitler - hold my beer...
Guderian wrote a LOT of bullshit and from the latest research I know there is NO objection by Guderian found in the archives about his objections against Operation Zitadelle, whereas from others there is. More about it in this video: kzhead.info/sun/iLiglpeNf394nZE/bejne.html
time was on the allies side......obviously
One thing that always confused me about Kursk is the incredibly high Soviet casualties in comparison to the German casualties. The Soviets were prepared, had the defensive advantage, and held a huge numerical advantage, yet suffered something like 2.5X the casualties the Germans took. I'm not sure if the numbers we have are bogus or what was going on.
Most likely bad leadership. At the time Stalin was going through more generals then they had timely replacements. All in the name of loyalty to the ruling party.
every russian soldier who was deemed lost stood up and died again later
I have no doubt that the Germans massively inflated their numbers for morale purposes as he covered in another video.
Soviets suffered ~189 thousands irrecoverable (KIA and MIA) and 406 thousands recoverable (WIA) casualties during defensive phase of the Kursk battle. 254/608 thousands for the entire operation including counter-offensives. German losses were 103 thousands KIA and MIA + 433 thousands WIA. So if you look at the overall casualties then the number is relatively close (~860 thousand for the Soviets and 533 thousands for the Germans), the ratio is about 1,3 to 1 but Soviets suffered higher proportion of irrecoverable casualties. How that can be explained? The most plausible version that I encountered is that Germans still maintained their overall fire superiority in 1943 and Soviets only managed to keep up with them at Kursk by stockpiling munitions beforehand. To use as example - Red Army used about 3,2 million 76,2 mm high explosive shells in July 1943 (it was mainstay caliber of their divisional artillery and therefore it these guns were most numerous). In comparison Wermacht used 3,4 million of 10 cm high explosive shells in the same month (105 mm gun was main German division artillery piece and therefore also was most numerous piece). So Germans had less guns but they actually fired more (and much heavier, 10 cm shell was about 15 kilos while 76,2 mm one was only 6) shells. Situation with heavier guns was even worse for the Soviets - most common soviet 152 mm pieces fired 394 thousands shells in July while German 15 cm guns fired whopping 872 thousands shells. Summarzing this - Germans inflicted much more casualties on the Soviets by utilizing their firepower superiority which was based around better ability to supply much smaller amount of guns with larger amount of ammunition.
Берти Вустер That makes a lot of sense. It fits my priors since I remember reading somewhere that the Germans fired something like 3X the number of artillery shells at Kursk than the Soviets. It seems the Soviets wouldn't start to seriously outgun the Germans until Bagration.
Of course knowing all the details of the impending attack weeks and even months in advance helps a lot too.
Good video, thank you very much
I noticed that quite some wehraboos and russophobes are pissed. Some guy said mhv might be working for Putin lol 😂😂😂
Oh man someone dares to question the heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII? OMGGGGGOGOGOGOGO REEEEEEEE RUSSOPHILE! WEHRABOO!!!1111!! MIGHT AS WELL BE AN ANTI-SEMITE TOO FOR GOOD MEASURE REEEEEEEEE!!111!!
@@beurteilung713 how can they do that on a video covering nazis and soviets only?
@@beurteilung713 and one of the comments evidence came from generals memoirs (blamed hitler but not themselves)
@@beurteilung713 "heavily overstated role of the USSR in WWII" - Are you from a former Soviet block country? We were taught that Soviets won the war, while the Western Front was something of a sideshow. That's an overstatement, thought I wouldn't say it's a *heavy* overstatement.
@@beurteilung713 "Heavily orverstated"... 75% of the German forces were commited to the eastern front, you idiot.
Wer kennt sie nicht, die Schlacht von Köörsk :D
the triangular formation on the front line is really interesting, reminds me of the way bridges are made of triangular beams
More food for my ww2 trpg game! Thanks man, awesome video.
You should check out tik videos as well. His documentaries are worth the time
When you randomly watch these history video and you history teacher is teaching your class about those history video you just randomly watched
intelijent
A question - knowing the Soviet were well dug in with such deep defence, why didn't Hilter go somewhere else? Could they have reconsider their objective and attack somewhere north hence dislodging the Soviet plan?
They did, but soviet artillery (BM-13 and etc.) always destroyed those defence lines.
The Kursk salient threatened by surrounding other German armies, it was impossible to leave it as it was.
Thank you for video sir 👏🏼💐👏🏼💐👏🏼💐👏🏼💐
as always, really interesting
Here's a question, after major battles like Kursk, and the war in general, whose job was it to clean up all the minefields?
Cows
@@oceanhome2023 kek
Engineer/sappers
@@oceanhome2023 lul
Gulag inhabitants, probably.
- How many defence lines we want in Kursk? - Yes.
love the totally liminal message at the end.
a excellent indepth video for military war nerds......which i include myself in....and was very happy to see this video :D
Russian were ingenious with their tactics, it's not only numbers that made them won the war.
Wow. I knew the Russkies had been able to fortify.. but they turned that ENTIRE salient into a fortress plus some.. Impressive.
Great job