Get the book: » Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com All other books are 15 % OFF! » Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com » The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com » Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com » StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de » Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de » Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de

"Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become heroes." - The Beast of War

@davidbrennan660

7 ай бұрын

Such a good film...... if a bit silly.

@UncleJoeLITE

7 ай бұрын

They forgot "out of fuel, blame supply." But those guys didn't have a lot of better options! ;-)

@MonkeyJedi99

7 ай бұрын

Kind of like how I try to impress upon people the importance of proper brake maintenance on their vehicles. "A car that doesn't go is a camper. A car that doesn't stop is a coffin."

It's interesting how chemical warfare was still a potential threat in WW2 and the manuals had extensive info on that. Also interesting how soviet tank crews were supposed to fight until the last man, reminds me of WarThunder haha. Nice information in the video, well done!

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

Basically, any field manunal of any army: "you must fight to the last strength, using all available resources, fulfilling your oath". Meanwhile, typical "opinion" after almost a century: "brutal times and inhuman regimes! I saw "Enemy at the Gate", I can tell!"

@bololollek9245

7 ай бұрын

​@@Ailasherhahah exactly. especially accurate as "Enemy at the gate" depiction of a lack of weapons was a farce

@88porpoise

6 ай бұрын

It wasn't just a potential threat, it was a real threat. Japan used chemical weapons extensively in China. Although they didn't use them against Western forces. There was limited usage of them against the Soviets by Germany, most notably around Kerch. This was primarily done to eliminate strong defensive positions that were besieged. The British were also absolutely prepared to use them on their beaches if the Germans invaded. The main reason that they were not used extensively in Europe seems to be that neither side wanted the other to have reason to use it. In particular, the Germans knew they could never deploy them on anywhere remotely close to the scale the Allies could. Imagine if those thousand bomber raids were also dropping mustard gas and phosgene. Because the RAF was ready to do that if Germany used poison gas in the West.

Ah, yes, the tank is a herd creature. A lonely tank is a sad tank. Definitely getting a copy of. I'm more interested in the platoon size and if any.... justification is offered for the platoon size. Three and two? I don't know but that rubs me as small? Low? It seems too easy to reduce them down to ineffective, quickly. Just one vehicle and you've lost a notable level of firepower. Perhaps it's due to command and control? Either way, congrats on the book, the launch and looking forward to some interesting reading.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, from what I know the more tanks the harder to command.

@AE-wv8jd

7 ай бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Do you think platoon size is determined more by communications equipment/practicality over firepower and maneuvers?

@ssyn6626

7 ай бұрын

Kinda wonder on this, I know in the cold war the Soviets seem to use platoons of 3 and companies of 10 or so. T34 I understand have trouble with control but why t55 t72 is still in platoons of 3? Tradition or something stupid like that?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

@@ssyn6626 As far as I know the Bundeswehr had both platoons with 3 tanks, but also with 4 tanks. More tanks harder to command, at least that is the argument I heard so far.

@leonpeters-malone3054

7 ай бұрын

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized That I won't argue and it doesn't seem to be one technology can solve yet. Tanks are complex machines and the terrain can be as much an enemy as hostile fire. How many stories are there of tanks getting bogged down? The more tanks you need to get through an area, the harder it is. WW1 is one great example of that. Both right and wrong.

From the points mentioned in the 1944 Soviet manual, it seemed the Soviet tank tactics were geared to mostly offensive. It had a higher emphasize on firing and maneuvering, and the smaller platoon size (2-3 tanks) of Soviet tanks (vs German tanks) might have been the result of this, as during the attack Soviet tanks would be moving almost constantly, thus adding difficulties in keeping the platoon organized compared to the mostly defensive or less mobile German platoons, where 4-5 tanks could be commanded more easily.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

German platoons in early war were also that size, but they were called light platoons. So, no, it was not about that.

@hendrikvanleeuwen9110

7 ай бұрын

Russians didn't have a radio in every tank, so that will have limited platoon size.

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 "Russians didn't have a radio in every tank" Before 1943 - yes. But it's a 1944 manual.

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

​@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 Meanwhile, the same true for German tanks: "According to the organizational staff of February 1941 in the light tank company of the tank battalion of the German Panzer Division, three "Pz.II" and five "Pz.III" had Fu.5 transceivers, and two "Pz.II" and twelve "Pz.III" had only Fu.2 receivers. In the medium tank company, five "Pz.IV" and three "Pz.II" had transceivers, and two "Pz.II" and nine "Pz.IV" had only receivers [3- P.274]. The "Pz.I" did not have Fu.5 transceivers at all, except for special commander's "kIPz.Bef.Wg.I"." Alexei Isaev "Major myths about World War II"

@Flamechr

7 ай бұрын

​@@Ailasherbut revievers are way better than signal flags 😉

One of the very few channels with ads I actually want to hear.

Thanx for this info. It helps us wargamers alot.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

Glad to hear it!

I'm wondering if the Russian manual is talking about machine gun fire when firing on the move, "fire on the move - use for suppressing the personal and gun emplacements", where the German manual is directed at main gun usage, hence the difference. Either way, in a WWII era tank firing the main gun on the move you aren't hitting anything unless by luck.

@hazzardalsohazzard2624

7 ай бұрын

I could imagine an unaimed shot from a tank on the move could be enough to force infantry or an emplacement crew to dive for cover.

@gwtpictgwtpict4214

7 ай бұрын

@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 Possibly so, but your main gun has limited ammunition so do you really want to be firing it off in the hope it worries the enemy? I think not.

Very nice Video. Intersting comparison. I will need to get myself one of these nice books.

4:30 -- The Soviet instruction 249 reminds me of a quote from S.M. Stirling's 'Draka' novels -- "When you're out of fuel, become a pillbox. When you're out of ammo, become a bunker. When you're out of hope, become a hero."

To what degree might the similarities be down to the German Amy developing and training in the Soviet Union pre war and hostilities?

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

Given that military cooperation between the USSR and Germany peaked in the 1920s. And, for example, in 1933 Germany did not send new students to the joint tank schools - minimal. The Wehrmacht gained relatively more experience from the actual movement of troops into Austria during the Anschluss and even more experience from direct combat in the Polish and especially the French Campaign.

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

In addition, in the late 30's, the generation of almost all land and air vehicles changed, and what was before became known as "interwar". This was well demonstrated, for example, by the first Soviet-Finnish war.

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

In other words: the experience from the joint Soviet-German schools was by and large theoretical, for unit commanders, starting with the division. But already from regiment and below, to battalion and especially company and platoon level, direct experience of combat operations played a much greater role.

Having helped in the review process for this tank manual, I can say that it was surprisingly readable and quite interesting. The weird anal retentiveness of Soviet bureaucracy doesn't lead to boring text as on might expect, but does lead to some almost humorously specific instructions at certain points (like how to put on your anti-chemical gear or get out of your vehicle).

Enjoyed watching you cover Chris bailing out, as per the correct instructions. Chris' mission must have been to preserve the video, so he gathered his strength & continued the battle! 😅! 3:38

Another great video full of interesting information.

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

Awesome study!

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

Glad you think so!

Just bought the two tank manuals, they are hell expensive though.

Nice

Good video

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

What about British or Italian tank manuals?

German tank manuals available in various books: "D645, Training directive for the leichte and mittlere Panzer-Kompanie 1939" (dated 1 March 1939) was translated and published in Jentz, Panzertruppen Vol.1 "H.Dv.470/10, Guidelines for commanding and employing the Panzer-Regiment and Panzer-Abteilung in Combat" (dated 18 January 1941) was translated and published in Jentz, Tank Combat in North Africa. Does anyone know by chance an exact source of these manuals and are there any other similar manuals available in NARA or BAMA?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com

how well were these manuals communicated to the tank crews

4:11 which tank is that, panzer 2? what's the difference between 2 and Luchs?

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

look at the top

3:21 "Help, the tank is on fire" (Bismarck version)

please do a video on these (this is a copy and paste list for a few channels) units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches) the tank doctrine of countries evaluation of tank veiw ports evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries logistics units of the axes and allied powers in ww2 navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works) evaluation of types of ships or evaluation of navil warfare air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples (from different countries) ancient persan ships, ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser) tactics used so far in the Ukraine war, better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3, and probably the easiest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks, ancient urban warfare ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, tactics in the ruso jap war cold war navil tactics, Korean war tactics, strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war how were 17th centry sailing ships build types of bombs lunched by drones comands given on sailing ships (like ease the sheets and get ready to chine, or slack n beases, basically things you hear movie capitns say) why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations) why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot alot more on the Polynesians and māori, but please learn pronounceations if you do this

The manual of the Tankist..

I remember hearing that in the German manual, they had cartoons of scantily clad women to get the tank crews interested in the picture. somethings never change, I guess

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

5 ай бұрын

Only for the Tiger and Panther Fibel (Primer), there were a few other manuals with "cartoon" elements, two come to mind, yet, the majority from what I have seen were rather "sober".

Oh, dear my tank is on fire!.....is not covered.

Bold of you to assume anyone reads the manual

Not found in Russian tank manual. Later in war Stalin had ordered Russian tanks to avoid combat against enemy tanks!!! To avoid tank losses. Russian tanks were for infantry support and frontline breaktrhoughs. This manifested in 1944 battles in Karelian Isthmush, when Russian tanks were counter-attacked by Finnish tanks, Russians tanks always retreated, becouse of Stalin made battle regulation.

Glad to see going back history and not focusing on the war that you do not have the actual facts on

@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized

7 ай бұрын

The source situation is in some ways comparable in others it is not. The methods are pretty much the same and I usually outline what is known or speculation.

In 40k, you may only abandon a tank when your sabre is completely dull…

@cm275

7 ай бұрын

Heresy, as long as you have a working hand, foot, or mouth you have the means to smite the Emperor’s foes.

In the Soviet tank corps, the organization mattered little. The tanks were organized as a horde, with clear orders to attack in a general direction and destroy the fascist enemy. Retreat was strictly forbidden.

@Ailasher

7 ай бұрын

And their opposition was the Space Marines...

@variszuzans299

7 ай бұрын

@@Ailasher Fascists :P

@footisman2059

3 ай бұрын

Why are you lying?

@variszuzans299

2 ай бұрын

@@footisman2059 I am not lying. Moscow's Propaganda Ministry is lying. Soviet tank banzai charge at Prokhorovka, maybe, no?

1:15 that STAFF dude nearly got fucking domed by that ZiS-S-53