The Utterly Insane WW2 Strategy that lost 5,000 Tanks vs 1,000

17 днів тому

The Soviet Union, reeling in chaos and fear, steeled itself for impact as Nazi Germany unleashed the ferocious Operation Barbarossa.
Having swiftly conquered much of Europe, Germany’s vast Panzer formations rolled with the clear objective of crushing any soviet defense.
General Mikhail Kirponos launched a desperate counter-offensive against the encroaching 1st Panzer Group advancing toward Kyiv. The impending battle was a tumultuous fray that would engage 2,648 Soviet tanks from a total force of 5,000, pitted against about 1,000 German tanks.
The Soviets held a numerical edge, bolstered by many of the heavier KV and T-34 tanks, which were superior to anything in the German arsenal at the time. However, the six Soviet corps were mired in disorganization, suffering from a severe shortage of trucks and tractors essential for deploying battlefield logistics. They were all converging near the town of Brody for a brutally intense mechanized showdown.
It was a clash of raw numbers against meticulous strategy and unyielding execution. For the Soviets, their very existence hung in the balance. Vast tank formations, extending as far as the eye could see, hurtled into battle.
David Glantz, a historian of the Eastern Front and Soviet military, boldly declared about the Battle of Brody: (QUOTE) "This, in fact, is the biggest tank battle in World War 2."

КОМЕНТАРІ: 199

@jeromejooste3493 7 днів тому

The Tiger II (King Tiger) was designed in 1943 and deployed in 1944. Certainly not seen at the Battle of Brody. A collage of still images showing the correct tanks used by both sides would add immense value to your narration rather than a mishmash of incorrect film footage. Good script, pity about the footage.

@dasboot5903 6 днів тому

*..... also German "FERDINAND" appeared on the Eastern front .... at the Battle of KURSK - not earlier than that !!!!*

@Spartan902 4 дні тому

I have learnt just to listen to this channel. So many war channels do the same. I suppose there is only so much footage available but I would rather just look at a picture that at least shows something to do with the topic than just random footage.

@EdMcF1 8 днів тому

Obviously Stalin had 2,600 tanks knocking around without any plan to use them against Germany, said every fool since. The Soviets planned to do the same, but didn't expect Germany to attack, since the Germans had not planned for Winter, which is presumed to have made Stalin think the German dispositions were a bluff.

@destroyerarmor2846 8 днів тому

Stalin would have driven to the coast of France of Barbarossa didn't happen. Someone had to blink first

@robertmaybeth3434 8 днів тому

Correct, Stalin had set in motion the plans for a reverse-Barbarossa invasion of the Germans. For much of the history since 1945, Stalin has been painted in most of history as almost an innocent "friendly" ally whom villain Hitler viciously stabbed in the back by attacking even after a peace treaty. But with the release of many old Soviet-era documents, we know the truth about Stalin. Stalin was no friendly ally of Hitler but his mortal enemy - and Stalin's plan all along was to attack Germany. And as it turns out, Hitler's attack actually WAS a pre-emptive strike, just as he claimed, on a hostile Soviet Union already deploying to attack FIRST. Stalin was greatly disturbed in 1940 when Hitler attacked France and they surrendered after only 6 weeks. Stalin was counting on the Germans getting into a long war with the western allies, hopefully weakening both sides. And then by 1943 Stalin's plan was to attack a weakened Nazi Germany and over-run all of western Europe. But for all this to happen, at least a Soviet attack on the Germans was supposed to come first. And Hitler simply pre-empted Stalin by launching Barbarossa when he did (June 22 1941). This is not my opinion or some crack-pot theory, the Soviet defector "Viktor Suvorov" wrote two books proving all of this beyond a shadow of a doubt, using mountains of Russian documents, from newly opened Soviet archives from Stalin's era. One of his books is called "The chief culprit" and explains what and how Stalin helped bring about the second world war (to further his own territorial interests and further 'world communism".).

@Spartan902 4 дні тому

Spot on! They hated each other and it was only a matter of who blinked first.

@DIREWOLFx75 21 годину тому

@@destroyerarmor2846 "Stalin would have driven to the coast of France of Barbarossa didn't happen." That is a historical piece of propaganda to make excuses for Germany. It's based on "oh, USSR moved HUGE amounts of equipment westwards in 1940-1941, obviously they were preparing to attack!". A fact completely ignoring that what was being moved were the static defense units that were previously part of a line of fortifications further eastwards, meant to equip the new defensive line that USSR began building in 1939. Or rather, it wasn't even the UNITS being moved, only their heavy equipment. Hoardes of 76mm guns in particular together with large amounts of ammo for them were moved westwards many months before the new fortifications would be ready. Which resulted in Germany capturing dozens of large equipment caches. And overrunning the halffinished fortifications with almost no opposition. But anyone who thinks cannons without any means to move them, is meant for offensive use, needs extensive brain surgery. And anyone who has looked at the Soviet military dispositions of 1939 to 1941 will see very obviously that USSR was not in any way preparing to attack westwards. Please go back to school and learn ACTUAL history instead of the propaganda versions.

@floycewhite6991 17 годин тому

The original Barbarossa plan had been to stop and dig in for winter a few hundred kilometers into Russia. At that time, the army would have gotten winter equipment. Instead, the High Command ordered a renewed attack that continued smashing Soviet armies. Stalin received the report that woolens and sheepskin prices hadn't risen in the West, meaning that no governments were buying them up for winter uniforms. Naturally the Soviet leaders presumed there would be no attack that year.

@jerrycoronado6887 13 днів тому

This battle of Dubno-Brody has been overshadowed by the battle of Kursk in historical archives. By any measure the Battle of Dubno-Brody shall be enshrined in history as the largest tank battle ever. The sheer number of tanks engaging and support equipment turned this battle into a graveyard the like of which will never be again.

@willmont8258 10 днів тому

The Soviets wanted people to see Kursk as the biggest tank battle in history because they can claim they won it, unlike Dubno-Brody which they lost.

@cwcsquared 8 днів тому

Brody 4500 tanks. Kursk 6000 + tanks

@willmont8258 7 днів тому

@@cwcsquared But did the Soviets understate the numbers at Brody while overstating the numbers at Kursk?

@cwcsquared 7 днів тому

@@willmont8258 it’s doubtful they even know how many tanks were involved, especially at Brody.

@willmont8258 7 днів тому

@@cwcsquared I would be willing to bet they don't know exact numbers, but I would also bet that the Soviets lied about the numbers to downplay their losses and overstate the German losses. And I would bet that the early battles had very high losses for the Soviets because the tanks were mostly obsolete T-26 and BT-7, many of which were abandoned because they either broke down or ran out of fuel before the battle was over.

@captderichelieu2280 4 дні тому

The defeat of the Russians in the first months of Barbarossa was no different from the defeat of the French and their allies in 1940, despite the fact that many models of French tanks were superior to their German counterparts in both quality and quantity. The difference is that the Soviets were able to quickly heal their wounds and organize stubborn resistance, inflicting terrible losses on the Germans. General Heinz Guderian memoirs, entitled [The Soldier's Path], indicate that in the first six months of the war on the eastern front, the Wehrmacht's irretrievable losses amounted to 600,000 soldiers and officers,......

@attila7092 7 днів тому

Great footage. I'm surprised you didn't show us some U-boat action

@kixigvak 6 днів тому

No U boats were involved in this theatre

@roryobrien4401 6 днів тому

@@kixigvak"theatre" is right

@timwhitten9918 3 дні тому

😂😂😂

@External2737 2 дні тому

With how off the video was, there should have been Bismarck footage.

@Escalaminhante 2 дні тому

U boats in Central Europe?

@S300V 8 днів тому

One of the big misconceptions of barbarossa is that German PanzerIII s and Stugs fought T34s and KVs. Not realy. Most soviet armour was still BT7, BT5, T26... all paper thin. KVs were very unreliable while T34s werent too many.

@markpaonessa2778 6 днів тому

Only in the beginning

@S300V 6 днів тому

@@markpaonessa2778 Yes, when the soviets were having those major losses.

@brucenorman8904 6 днів тому

By October 1941 the Soviets had lost around 1500 T-34s

@S300V 5 днів тому

@@brucenorman8904 Not realy. They only had 970 to begin with in June! Even if they built another 600 until October, its not likely those got to the front or in the hands of tankers. Also 50 % of T34 losses at that time were due to transmission fault.

@DIREWOLFx75 21 годину тому

@@brucenorman8904 "By October 1941 the Soviets had lost around 1500 T-34s" They had not even produced that many by then. And they still had hundreds left in service. Maybe you should go back to school and try learning REAL history instead of propaganda versions?

@albertopiergiorgi5980 4 дні тому

The high failure rate of Tigers and Panthers was not the main result of design flaws, but of clever, hard-to-detect sabotage by slave laborers on production lines in Germany.

@kaymeddings4162 13 годин тому

Only in part.

7 днів тому

The LEGO Battle of Brody is more historically correct than this.

@johntruman4397 7 днів тому

Germany at this time could not afford these tanks to be lost.

@charlestaylor253 6 днів тому

Three words: lack of radios. Almost all soviet armor, (especially in '41/'42), lacked radio communications. Even the few command tanks only had wireless telegraph recieivers.

@ofertsadok8640 12 днів тому

99% of the tanks in this movie have no conection with the text from tiger II to pre war light american combat cars

@65kaweber 12 днів тому

I hate this too. Far too many videos have this flaw. So irritating.

@billy54bob 12 днів тому

Did I see Japanese troops at one point?

@sayhey7482 11 днів тому

@@billy54bob IF we had EVEN MORE TIME TO WASTE ,prob find gengis and his ELEPHANTS tromping around !!!

@cwcsquared 11 днів тому

The tank losses were 5 to 1 for the first two years of the Eastern Front

@Not_A_Subhuman_Commie 10 днів тому

@@billy54bobSoviets from the Siberian area.

@stewartmillen7708 7 днів тому

KVs and T-34s formed a small fraction of the Soviet tank total in 1941. And many if not most Soviet losses were due to shortages of spare parts, mechanics, and infrastructure. Soviet tankers were thus forced to keep running their tanks until they broke down and were abandoned. Moreover, in combat, sometimes Soviet tanks entered combat with no ammo for their main gun, and were forced to run over German infantry and AT guns. Desperate? Sure. But "insane"? Not really.

@jamescollinson2456 4 дні тому

The overall strategy of an 1800-mile front and the decision not to concentrate on attacking and seizing Moscow were Hitler's greatest mistakes in Operation Barbarossa. Even if every detail of the plan had been carried out to perfection it would ultimately have failed. The concept of a massive assault on the Soviet Union on a front stretching from the Black Sea to the Gulf of Finland was far beyond the capacity of the German military to carry out. The Wehrmacht simply never had, even at its maximum strength, sufficient men, weapons, supplies, and fuel to reach the objectives of the plan. If the German war strategists had been aware of the true vulnerabilities of the Soviet Union they would have realized above all else the absolute necessity of capturing Moscow as rapidly and decisively as possible. Moscow was not only the political and military control center for the entire country, its brain, but was also Russia's cultural and spiritual nucleus, its heart. The fall of Moscow would have resulted not just in crippling the Soviet military's ability to wage war but would have inflicted a massive, in fact catastrophic, decline in military and civilian morale.

@BeamRider100 5 днів тому

Excellent footage and narrative. Seeing the train tank was a highlight for me, I've never seen that before, except in video games.

@juergenernst1320 4 дні тому

Great footage and great narrative. If only the two matched to tell a story.

@billballbuster7186 8 годин тому

Brody is controversial for several reasons, though we know virtually all German tanks were Panzer III and IV, the Soviet tanks were mostly light tanks T-40 to T70 and Lt medium T-26 and BT series, only a few T-34 and KV were present. Soviet numbers are also sketchy. The Germans employed mass anti-tank guns, artillery and air power during the fighting, so it was not just a tank battle.

@sheldonwheaton881 4 дні тому

Great narration! No glaring mispronunciations!

@davidmouser596 3 дні тому

actually it was 700+ German tanks vs 3000+ Soviet tanks.

@richardlambert3238 День тому

Sources? Where did you get your figures?

@davidmouser596 День тому

@@richardlambert3238 Depends as this battle was often described as confused by every source so it depends on who you read. Both sides record different numbers and apparently some tank units never even made it to the battle. Example: The highest I have seen quoted was about 750 for the Germans, and I'm guessing the 1000 number would mean all five German tank divisions would be at full strength and at the battle. Of those units that did reach Brody, none of them was at full strength. So lets say the German tank count of 1000 is unlikely but theoretically possible.

@floycewhite6991 17 годин тому

If Germany was planning a sneak attack on the USSR, why did it invade with zero medium, main battle tanks? Germany would not have been ready to go to war with the Soviets until 1943. Why was it forced to go so early? And why did the USSR make 35,000 tanks in peacetime? Vladimir Rezun answers these questions and more in his book The Chief Culprit.

@UkrainianPaulie 15 днів тому

The KV2 was useless. If not on exactly flat terrain, the turret would not traverse.

@robertmaybeth3434 12 днів тому

I did not know that! But my favorite Soviet tank feature has to be, the corners they cut to make the (mostly excellent) T-34. Some of them are mind-blowing to me... For example the T-34's turret was not attached to the turret floor. So when the turret turned, the crew's seats did not turn with it, as all crew seats were permanently attached to the hull floor! Now imagine you are in a T-34 in combat and you see an enemy tank at 3 o'clock - now you must rotate the turret to engage. While your loader is cranking the turret like mad (yep, a hand-cranked turret - surprise feature #2!), 3 men in the turret are scootching in their seats and hoping no body parts get crushed in the process. Now the loader must feed in a shell, all while the gunner tries desperately to aim the gun-sights in time, hoping to make the first shot before the German panzer blows them up first, which for the first two years of Barbarossa was the usual result. It is true the T-34 saved Russia due to its being so good and so numerous. But the compromises the designers were forced to make, and the poor training of crews in general, meant for every panzer the Russian tanks knocked out it cost at least 4 or 5 T-34's in exchange.

@paulmanson253 10 днів тому

Err. If my memory is correct,the T34 76 had a 2 man turret. T34 85 not until 1944,and then 3 man turret. That made it worse in terms of situational awareness for the tank commander. I think it was him as had to load the gun. The T34 had a lot going for it in terms of previous Soviet tank size and design,but it sure had a lot of drawbacks as well. @@robertmaybeth3434

@claudioeugenioiachini5203 10 днів тому

@@robertmaybeth3434Sin dudas su mejor caratteristica era la de ser numeroso.

@cosmincasuta486 8 днів тому

@@robertmaybeth3434 Yeah! And that was the receipt for winning!

@timwhitten9918 3 дні тому

What?? No Bismarck pictures parked on the front lines 😂😂

@annehersey9895 14 днів тому

Unfortunately, most of the Soviet tanks were the pitiful T26’s!

@mmiYTB 12 днів тому

Most of T-26s no matter how pitiful, still had the 45mm cannon that could penetrate any german tank at hundreds of meters. A lot of BTs had it. BA-10s had it. All the success that Barbarossa had was caused by the breakdown of Soviet command and morale, not by the equipment difference. There was a big supply shortage though - 76mm tank and AT guns had very little AP rounds. The AP rounds for 45mm guns was in a good supply though.

@External2737 2 дні тому

@@mmiYTBThen explain the difference in losses. The BT tanks were destroyed in great numbers due to the fact they were exclusively made in Ukraine. BTs were vulnerable to everything, including the PAK 36.

@DIREWOLFx75 21 годину тому

"Unfortunately, most of the Soviet tanks were the pitiful T26’s!" Yes, because USSR had more T-26s alone than Germany had tanks at all. IIRC, USSR had around 8 thousand T-26s in service in 1941. And a total number of tanks around 20-22 thousand depending on what sources you look at. And maybe you should go compare them with the tanks Germany actually had in mid 1941? Because the overwhelming majority of German tanks at the time were not really much better. The common guns on the Pz-III were the 37mm and 50L42. Most Pz-IVs still had the snubnose 75mm and none had the 75L48. The T-26 were roughly comparable to Pz-I, Pz-II. But as they were made to accompany infantry, they were generally slower, better armed and slightly better armored. And T-26 was a LIGHT TANK. They're not supposed to be compared to Pz-III or -IV because they weigh in at HALF the tonnage of those tanks. The T-28 medium tank in comparison was roughly comparable to the Pz-III and -IV. The Pz-IV in particular as it mostly had a short 76mm gun. While the BT-series despite the downside of trying to exploit the mostly inferior Christie-suspension(all tanks using it ended up taller and heavier than they should have been), were reasonably decent.

@mmiYTB 14 годин тому

@@External2737 Difference in losses cannot be attributed to the qualities of the tanks themselves. All german tanks were quite vulnerable to the tens of thousands 45mm guns either mounted on tanks, armored cars or as ATGs, now add those 76mm guns mounted on T-34/KVs and as ATGs they were produced since 1936. Yet, Germans could get through with their mediocre (in armor and guns) tanks they had in quite low numbers to the outskirts of Moscow. The Red Army morale and command structure simply collapsed.

@frankanddanasnyder3272 11 днів тому

Guess Germany secretly had Elephant tank destroyers and Panther tanks in 1941.....both shown in multiple scenes....

@markpaonessa2778 6 днів тому

Even a Sherman with gi's !

@miskomarkovic3446 11 днів тому

Thank you!

@TheLucanicLord 6 днів тому

13:44 A Sherman and a Stuart?

@brucewelty7684 9 годин тому

yippie there are hits in the sidebar for me to 3 dots!

@daviddean707 День тому

I think we all know how that ended.

@serhaim-mt1jr 4 дні тому

As far as i know buggest tank battle was in Kursk, 1943, anyway when u mess with the russians the story allways ends the same way....

@andrzej3511 13 днів тому

During the Barbarossa Plan, the Wehrmacht mainly used the PzKpfw III (Panzerkampfwagen III) - which was designed by Daimler-Benz AG, and was a medium tank from the beginning of World War II. It was the most dynamically developed model serving in the army of the Third Reich. The first units, built in 1937, were armed with 37 mm guns. Because they were not effective against Allied tanks, in 1940 they began to produce tanks equipped with 50 mm guns (both short- and long-barrel). In mid-1942, the vehicles began to be rearmed with short-barreled 75 mm guns. So it was a tank COMPARABLE to the BT-26 and MUCH weaker than the T-34, which had just started to appear en masse in the Soviet army. To say that the Wehrmacht had an overwhelming technological advantage would be to tell a lie - it didn't at that time! PzKpfw IVs, better known as Tigers, had the advantage, but they were Wehrmacht's ANSWER to the T-43 and they began to enter service at the turn of 1943/1944!!!! And the truth is that modern and very good German tanks have NEVER BALANCED THE COMBAT POWER of the T-34s, which have a gigantic quantitative advantage. The alleged superiority of the Wehrmacht is a gigantic lie of Soviet propaganda,which tried that way to hide the complete helplessness and incompetence of the Soviet command, including Stalin himself!!!!! Why? With the simultaneous, yet unintentional, complicity of Goebbels' Nazi propaganda. Because when the Germans attacked, Stalin was just finishing preparations for a massive attack on the West with the intention of reaching the Atlantic Ocean!!!!! He's only a few weeks away... It was not a large army prepared to defend, it was an army prepared to ATTACK - this is a huge difference and hence the initial defeats. Hitler knew this perfectly well and that is why he attacked Soviet Russia first, even though he was still not prepared logistically - he did not have enough means of transport! Strategically, it was a pre-emptive attack dictated by the development of the situation in Soviet Russia!!!! This was another attempt to implement Lenin's plan. But Lenin was not its original creator either, because he copied the plans of the tsarist army. Today we are witnessing another attempt. This time under Putler's leadership... But idea is atill the same: "русский мир" from Vladivostok to Gibraltar. At the beginning of... And in my opinion, until Russia is NOT dismantled as an empire, it will make such attempts successively, regardless of its own losses, especially the losses of neighboring countries. As you can see, Soviet propaganda was very effective and STILL IS - this bullshitt is still repeated until today... Just for that reason. Think about it!

@wvanhelden 13 днів тому

The PzKpfw IV was the Panzer IV, not the Tiger. The PzKpfw V was the Panther, and the Tiger was the PzKpfw VI.

@andrzej3511 13 днів тому

@@wvanhelden Yes, that's a good point, thank you - I made a typo. :)))) BTW The Panthers fell prey to Soviet artillery for almost a year due to permanent engine and transmission failures. They began to become a real force at the end of the war, when the Germans were clearly losing and at the same time had huge problems with supplying their tanks with fuel. But who knows? If the Germans had, say, 2,000 Panthers - functional, reliable - during the Battle of Kursk... But this is probably creating an alternative history. They didn't have, that's all. Too late... Too few of these machines... However, this does not change the overall meaning of my post. Which is just one of many key pieces of evidence that the supposed overwhelming advantage was on the Germans' side. At the beginning of that battle, the Soviet advantage was a little more than 3:1 according to all strategic and tactical rules. Yet Soviet losses oscillated between 5:1 and 4:1. This still proves terrible leadership - errors, lack of coordination. The Soviets did everything wrong that could be done wrong. If they achieved territorial gains, it was ONLY thanks to their numerical superiority, today called a "meat grinder". And OF COURSE Soviet propaganda hailed this battle as a resounding success and the turning point of WWII. But what kind of success is it if you lose five times more people and equipment than your opponent? And notice: the same thing is happening today: Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka in Ukraine... 5:1, or even worse loss ratio!!! Think about it: if in a street fight your opponent knocks out your eye, breaks your nose, knocks out half of your teeth, but you manage to knock him out in the end, will you consider the fight won? So think about it! Because, as you can see, history tends to repeat itself...

@vonbennett8670 12 днів тому

Very good points. Imaging if at the start of Barbarossa, the panzer divisions would have been made up of significant numbers of PzKpfw IIs with long 50 mm main guns and PzKpfw IVs with long 75mm main guns. I have read and heard in the past that after France, were the current panzer's main guns were found to be inadequate, Hitler (and others) wanted the panzers to receive upgrades to their main guns, but he didn't insist enough and therefore the request was ignored. In addition, Germany foolishly did not mobilize their economy to a war footing until 1943. If both discrepancies could have been address after France fell, there could have been more PzKpfw IIIs and Ivs available in June of 1941 and these could have all been equipped with a much better main gun.

@johanmetreus1268 12 днів тому

Pzkw III was always intended to have a 5 cm gun, but the development had been delayed so available the 3.7 cm was used in the meantime. The whole thing about Soviet Union preparing to attack is just bollocks. First of all, party theory stated that the Capitalist states inevitably would end up at war with each other; fighting over profits, and the time to strike was when the reactionist enemies had fully exhausted themselves which at the earliest would happen in 1943. Secondly, the operational readiness of the Red Army at the time for the invasion in 1941 does not support it. There were no huge depots of ammunition, fuel nor supplies on the West front that could be dispersed to the units, no organisation to effectively coordinate large formations and no plan to concentration of forces, all three absolutely needed if a major offensive is to be conducted and needing to be prepared months if not even years in advanced.

@robertmaybeth3434 12 днів тому

You have got a lot right but some things wrong. Germans first introduced the Tiger (Panzer Mk V) in late 1942 around Leningrad. These first Tigers got stuck in mud and the Russians knocked them out with ease. (The German total production was around 1,400 Tiger 1's). The Panther (Mk VI) was first fielded during Kursk, July 1943, and they did not perform well. Being rushed into service, they had major defects - some had flame coming out their exhaust at times - and more Panthers were lost to breakdowns than to enemy action (total Panthers built, between 5,000-6,000). The awesome Tiger II (Konigstiger, Royal Tiger) went into battle not long after D-Day and created mass carnage of allied tanks whenever it appeared, but again, was plagued by constant breakdowns. (Less than 450 Tiger II's were made, only half of which ever made it to a battlefield).

@jordon8797 13 днів тому

I totally agree, there's Sherman's and American troops in this! didn't realize yanks where on the eastern front! Lmao what a joke

@roryobrien4401 6 днів тому

GI with a bazooka. Clickbait

@DawnOfTheDead991 7 днів тому

This battle was in the summer, so why the winter shots?

@dennispfeifer7788 12 днів тому

Hitler rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes...

@markpaonessa2778 14 днів тому

Terrible job. Video of vehicles that are totally out of place. Come on. Get off the air

@bobyoung1698 9 днів тому

You will find this disparity to be common in many WWII films. There just isn't enough footage available for all the producers clamoring for access. Much of the footage is fiercely defended by historians and museums. If you truly want this series to "get off the air," you should create a superior one.

@EllieMaes-Grandad 8 днів тому

@@bobyoung1698 Good point, but inadequate footage should prompt the inclusion of something else that's useful, be that still images or maps etc.

@bobyoung1698 7 днів тому

@@EllieMaes-Grandad Valid point.👍

@jayduke8554 5 днів тому

U r a dcik

@josefkopacz1144 2 дні тому

Soviet union, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belorussia, etc etc..etc. population of a massive manpower power pool. Germany should have supported Japans Northwarders who wanted to attack the eastern territory of the Soviet union. The naval forces would have easily captured Vladivostok. Their airpower at that time would have dominated the skies and I'm sure the numerical supremacy of the Soviet would have been negated.

@1339LARS 8 днів тому

LJ!!!!!!

@Leon-bc8hm 7 днів тому

Yes the soviets were so insane that they destroyed 3 complete German Armies on the toughest front and a a 2 million strong Japanese Kwantung army.... They must have do something wrong...

@Wolfen443 10 днів тому

Sorry, I wanted to like the video but the footage was terribly wrong. The kind of warfare in this film could not be possible now without air superiority or massed drone and artillery/missiles support but it could make for an impressive set piece battle in the current war in the Ukraine

@schitthe 2 дні тому

Another one of theses videos just showing cut together scenes with no or little reference to what’s the video about. When I saw the first panther tanks I just stopped watching

@dlhaddix742 10 днів тому

These are terrible videos so don’t waste your time. Is just narration over action that doesn’t even complement the content or explain the video you’re watching.

@lon2515 8 днів тому

I've been arguing this point since I was a kid.Kursk wasn't the biggest tank battle,this was.(Also the tanks pictured here are all mixed up.Come on!!)

@RareSense 5 днів тому

Seeing the relentless and unforgiving Russian mentality you can see why USA and NATO would not stand up to a mobilised Russian army in Ukraine war and why it is wiser to make peace!……

@lanetomkow6885 5 днів тому

Huh?

@Deiwilldie День тому

Russians got their asses smoked in Ukraine by NATO weapons and superior tactics.

@kaymeddings4162 13 годин тому

The opposite may be the case: it appears that Putin is trying to reinstate the old Russian Empire. Resistance is essential: sueing for peace will only delay further incursions.

@JDDC-tq7qm 11 днів тому

Russia and Chinese the only 2 capable of losing millions but still ending up winning the war 😂

@stephenmcknight9085 День тому

Terrible use of footage. Go back to your drawing board.

@johnconnery1939 11 днів тому

Wow what a mish mash

@DIREWOLFx75 21 годину тому

Wow, propagandise some more why don't you?

@dasboot5903 6 днів тому

*@ **02:23** .... it is a SOVIET PROPAGANDA document, which was addressed to the soldiers of the army of the Polish Republic .... to switch their side to the SOVIETS !!!!*