Soviet Deep Battle Doctrine

[@alexeypopov3367]

It's maybe first time when I see a video on English about Eastern front which is actually talks about tactics and not exploiting usual propaganda miths about general Moroz and Russians being a cannon meat. Thank you!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

no problem!

[@farhanshams7286]

This videos also highly empathised the US aid to Soviet Union!! But failed to mention that The Allied force was lucky they didn’t have to go up against the full blunt of the German army because Red army took care of them.

[@jasonharryphotog]

Correct, well said

[@ID0NTFUCKRATS]

At seelow they were cannon meat

[@beback_]

Check out TIK or Military History Visualized.

[@sherifelsharkawyful]

Not many videos go over Deep Battle, let along military theory. Thanks for tackling an often overlooked field. Great video!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thank you so much! if you enjoyed please share and subscribe. This channel is dedicated to many things but one of the main points is military theory.

[@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745]

wow you mean the soviets didnt just throw thousands of people without weapons at the enemy?! surprising!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Whooo knewwww?

[@jasonharryphotog]

The capitalist farmers were fed in at an alarming rate

[@greybone777]

In the beginning less than one in 5 had rifles. The commanders point 👉 at enemy lines and said, your weapons are over there. The history Channel.

[@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745]

@@greybone777 lol ok

[@jacksonthesyndicalist2771]

@@greybone777 that's not true at all, most stupid ww2 history claim I've heard

[@GavinTheFifer]

So basically: Blitzkrieg = tactical, Deep Battle = Operational

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Deep Battle = Strategic

[@GavinTheFifer]

Okay, makes sense. Nice video by the way, ya got a new sub

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

@@GavinTheFifer welcome to the underworld.

[@Kriegter]

*Bewegungskrieg

[@jasonharryphotog]

The British fight to destroy infrastructure, reduce and isolate you power, then fight you if need be, maintain the advantage, thrashed before the battle takes place

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I would like to point out that deep battle formations generally had very narrow frontage and the pictures in the video show how limited operations were 20-50 km. Deep battle really focused on superior firepower and mechanized power on certain points. My next video on this series will focus on Schwerpunkt.

[@WildBillCox13]

A useful contrast, explaining both Deep Battle and the Schwerepunk of Blitzkrieg.

[@Semper_Liberi]

Long live Marshal Rokossovsky.

[@mito88]

za stalina!

[@Kriegter]

he was the gold of the trash pile of officers in 1941

[@powerslave6944]

Dostroivia!!! Uraa!

[@Kriegter]

@Comrade Tim УРА!

[@Lechoslaw8546]

Rokossowski, great Pole and Polish patriot. All his life he was driven by Polish patriotism, will to liberate Poland from German occupation and this is the bottom line of his success in Eastern Front battles.

[@fulcrum2951]

Most of the internet: "what is this 'deep battle' and 'maskirovka'?"

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

:*( don't hurt my feelings

[@brig.gen.georgiiisserson7226]

Stop stalking me

[@jellyunicorn8347]

muh soviet human wave offensives literally devouring superior ubermensch wehrmacht with a sea of soviet bodies

[@brig.gen.georgiiisserson7226]

Jelly Unicorn Sir what you have just written is exactly what wehraboos think of the red army

[@jellyunicorn8347]

@@brig.gen.georgiiisserson7226 it is extremely sad, like it's not even what wehraboos think anymore it's sort of "general knowledge". (to be more specific it's the orthodox viewpoint which is still the most prevalent in popular history)

[@fulcrum2951]

I tried to implement some of the deep battle tactics into some rts games, lets just say it partially went well if the enemy units is too busy or very weakened or tricked to the other side of the map

[@zacharybray6200]

What games are you using them in?
These tactics only work well in games where its possible to just go past the enemy and strike their industrial centers and cities but most RTS games don't let you have enough units to maintain a frontline and push past your enemy.
Deep battle works well in HOI4 but good luck using it in starcraft!

[@vondantalingting]

@@zacharybray6200 once tried it in generals zero hour reborn v.6 mod and normally when playing rise of the red mod.
Though to be fair, I tend to utilize a combination of arty and tanks eschewing infantry. Just find a weakly defended spot, send a barrage to break the defense , and send 20-50 tanks and other vehicles through it and blow the nearest base to smithereens.
Doing it reminds me of Guderian's ghost division during the French campaign.

[@isiaharellano3789]

@@vondantalingting Ghost Division was commanded by Rommel not Guderian

[@gforce5674]

Very good video! In addition to Tukhachevsky, Georgii Isserson also contributed a lot to Deep Battle. His book was used by the Soviet generals during WWII. Sadly, like Tukhachevsky, he didn't receive the treatment or all the credit he was due and was left in to rot in prison throughout the course of the war. He got out a few years after, but was a spent man by then.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I have tried to have an open mind and just recently purchased his book on the operational art of deep battle. I want to get more into the nitty gritty of this whole concept.

[@chasikMkII]

I'd argue that attributing the deep battle doctrine to Tukhachevsky is just plain out wrong. and I'm not even sure that he understood it. At least, his works gave me an impression that he pretty much didn't. The core of the deep battle doctrine was actually created by Triandafillov, who, unfortunately, died in an air crash in 31.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

chasikMkII please give me book recommendations.

[@tjejojyj]

Blitz Of The Reich Glantz succinctly goes over “Deep Battle” and “Deep Operations” in this article (PDF online)
Soviet Operational Art and Tactics in the 1930s. David M. Glantz
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a232954.pdf
It’s more than Tukhachevsky and the main principles were laid down by 1928 before they had the equipment to carry it out. Given this was the year the first five-year-plan was announced it would be interesting to know if there is s direct relationship.
Also Harrison below gives all credit to Isserson/“Deep Operations” for the Red Armies operational success. This was obviously a development of “Deep Battle”, as Glantz explains, so his claim seems a bit melodramatic.
"Architect of Soviet Victory in World War II" by Dr. Richard Harrison
czcams.com/video/56N9iPjQDIU/video.html
Isserson was put in prison in 1941 and spent the whole war there.
Glantz touches on the Red Army reorganisations in November 1939 and 1940 following military setbacks in Poland and Finland. He also makes an interesting suggestion that the focus on the offensive “Deep Battle” led to a neglect of defensive operations. He says this in passing. I know from another source that Tukhachevsky had a conflict with Stalin & Voroshilov going back to 1930-32 about the need to consider defensive operations (Stalin eventually conceded Tukhachevsky was correct) so the lack of defences is likely a bi-product of the purges and subsequent mis-leadership.
-
I think the section in the video on Lend Lease is too narrow. If the USSR didn’t have Lend Lease trucks then wouldn’t they have built some instead of tanks to satisfy their doctrine, just as they had built tanks from the early 30s? MHV makes this point about substitution in his video on Lend Lease.
There is rich material here and it deserves a longer video to delve into the topic.

[@triantis35]

Actually the deep battle was Triandafylov s work whom Tukhachevsky had him and 10 other generals killed in an airplane sabotage

[@felghanalavochkin200]

Blitzkrieg or the German military line of thinking was never considered on a strategic level since waging wars against countries adjacent to the German borders did not require so. Excellent civil educations and proper military training that perfected the disciplines emphasized on tactical/operational level maneuvers gave them tremendous advantages, and that has been the only method the Germans confidently relied on since the Franco-Prussian War. Such "strategy" simply will not work on the Soviet Union, and the German high command knew that beforehand. Which is exactly why they combine this inadequate operational level doctrine with the notion of Hitler's ideological war and changed from the civil warfare in the West to the war of annihilation in the East by adapting to the brutal conducts. Therefore, using the example of Barbarossa is somewhat misleading as it certainly does not do justice to the concept of Blitzkrieg. The explanation on Deep Battle, however, is quite spot on, although the various operations the Soviets carried out in 1944 known as the Stalin's Ten Blows you cited in the video was not the most "typical" presentation of the strategy. David M. Glantz had pointed out: Stalin had always believed that launching large-scale offensive operation on the entirety of the front in order to fully utilize USSR's superiority both in manpower and materials aiming at exhausting German military capability, therefore, triggering a total collapse of its defense in all theaters. This kind of military thinking, although faded after the winter offensives around Moscow, somehow started to influence the Red Army's operations once again since Russia had regained nearly all its manpower and with the help of the Lend-Lease, can finally shake off logistical burdens to a certain degree by the time of 1944. Zhukov, Rokossovsky along with numerous other Soviet strategist had always been doubting this concept with good reasons. For instance, it ignored the essence of concentrating forces and breaking the enemy at a single point which leads to a better chance of defeating the opponent and of course requires a much smaller logistical system. Evidentally, this strategy proved to be not as effective as Stalin might think it would be. The Soviets stopped at the gate the Warsaw and were unable to aid the Polish rebels in the city due to logistical difficulties and other reasons(wink). But hey, who wants to go out of a limb and point out the dictator is wrong just so he can be thrown into Gulag and get his teeth bashed out all over again? Decent video overall, bravo.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

You hit the nail on the coffin.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

You lost me at spot on. However, I did go back and I am glad I finished reading it as you bring up a point I hope blitz of the Reich might cover: why did Russia choose not to assist the Polish Home Army uprising in Warsaw and to what extent did the atrocities of the Dirlwanger Brigade put it down?

[@toplak]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 Here is a great video and explanation why.
czcams.com/video/6tdZis2ZdZE/video.html&ab_channel=TIK

[@pawemarsza9515]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 first of all Stalin simply didn't want to. He considered Polish Government in Exile and Home Army as political enemies (which, to be honest, they were).
But that's the reason why he didn't help the Home Army, NOT the reason why the Red Army didn't reach Warsaw. And reason for that is simple: the Germans stopped them. The Red Army lost numerous battles in front of Warsaw and broke through only after a couple months.
Stalin wanted to take the city (why not?) but he planned to simply disarm and arrest and/or murder the Home Army leadership and soldiers

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@pawemarsza9515
Very clear and succinct explanation. Thank you.

[@pillbox2079]

Thank you for the video!
I was always calling Deep Battle the "Soviet Blitzkrieg" but you showed me that it is different.
One friend recomended me this video and I am very happy.
Have a great year!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thanks!

[@WildBillCox13]

A very insightful coverage and thanks for posting.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I do a lot of videos on the Soviet Union although I am actually anti communist, but I try to give a more nuanced analysis of the countries history without distortions from the cold war. I implore you to check my latest video on collectivisation.

[@WildBillCox13]

I will do so.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thx!

[@alexsveles343]

German way of war is designed for wining battles not wars
Russsian way of war,..well if you can control the entire fluidity of war itself ,,u have the war half won before it even started
And this is where operativni um or operational art comes from

[@powerslave6944]

Err the commissar guy riding the bear at 1:30 is that even real like it happened lmao 😂

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

no no no. Just some inspiration. Haha

[@triantis35]

Triandafilov created this layout of force allocation for deep operations in his Character of Operations of Modern Armies, which retained its utility throughout the 1930s. Triandafilov assigned the shock army some 12-18 rifle divisions, in four to five corps. These units were supplemented with 16-20 artillery regiments and 8-12 tank battalions. By the time of his death in 1931, Triandafilov had submitted various strength proposals which included the assignment of aviation units to the front unit. This consisted of two or three aviation brigades of bomber aircraft and six to eight squadrons of fighter aircraft

[@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

As you noted, Germany was at her the limit of her offensive capabilities in 1941. Barbarossa really was the peak of the Wehrmacht: They would never again be able to muster enough men, equipment, or fuel to be able to launch such a large offensive again. Comparing Fall Blau to Barbarossa, and Operation Zitadelle to Fall Blau, you can see just how rapidly German offensive capabilities got crippled.
And, with the US *alone* having a larger GDP than all the Axis powers combined, if Germany couldn't win quickly, they wouldn't win at all. Really, there is no scenario, at least none that is remotely realistic, where Germany could had ended the war on favourable, or even neutral, terms. The Soviets weren't going to shrug and just give up, nor were the British or Americans going to sit around on their islands forever.
It was 1941 or bust for Germany.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

This is technically true as the axis had a war time GDP of $900 billion in 1990 dollars and the US had about $1000 billion at the same time. I don't think that includes industry in occupied territories although they couldn't be exploited. I think that without lend lease the Soviets would have defo asked for terms.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yes there was ideology but Stalin did attempt peace in the first few months. He went AWOL the first 10 days of Operation Barbarossa signalling fear. Hitler would have been a bit more difficult but compared to the secretive nature of Stalin, Hitler was an actor and went with what the public wanted.

[@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

I hadn't heard that Stalin actually attempted peace, huh
I guess I just can't imagine Hitler, wildly racist and genocidal, and Stalin, hardly a beacon of rationality himself, coming to an agreement. The destruction of the Soviet Union was the raison d'être of the Third Reich.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=160502
I am not 100% positive but someone cited Anthony Beevor in describing Stalin's intentions. They were genocidal creatures but I do think they were rational. For example Hitler saw the war as an increasingly long and attritional war and thus prioritized the South for resources against the wishes of General Hadler.

[@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Cool

[@triantis35]

Vladimir Triandafillov, an influential military writer, who worked with others to create a military strategy with its own specialized operational art and tactics. The concept of deep operations was a national strategy, tailored to the economic, cultural and geopolitical position of the Soviet Union. In the aftermath of several failures or defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, First World War and Polish-Soviet War, the Soviet High Command (Stavka) focused on developing new methods for the conduct of war. This new approach considered military strategy and tactics, but also introduced a new intermediate level of military art: operations

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thank you for this comment.

[@user-hv2ws8be7l]

I recognize that hoi2 ost

[@triantis35]

This edition of V.K. Triandafillov's classic contribution to Soviet military theory makes accessible to Western military historians and analysts one of the most important works from the interwar period. Triandafillov was an outstanding commander who helped to shape the military art, theory and doctrine of the Red Army as it sought to come to grips with the problem of future war. A conscript who rose through the ranks to become an officer in the Tsarist Army,

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I didn't know much about Triandafillov until someone had previously mentioned him in this video. Now I'm convinced.

[@triantis35]

@@BlitzOfTheReich Marshal Zukov in his memoirs talks about Triandafillov and his book

[@triantis35]

The actual study of the deep battle was done by Vladimir Triantafylov

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yes but Tukhachevsky also wrote his own work and with Isserson. All 3 were important but I will admit that I didn't know about Isserson and Triandafillov. No matter, I didn't get their doctrine wrong. :)

[@nunyabeeswax303]

One thing i think you got wrong is our help saved the Russians in the beginning of the war not at the end. Most of the Soviet industrial base was closer to Europe. After Germany invaded the Soviets had to move the equipment east past the Ural mountains. Germany never really had a chance to take out the Soviets. They could've made the Soviet union sue for peace but they couldn't conquer them.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Nun Ya Beeswax I made a video on lend lease if you’d like to watch

[@user-ue4fz2lj7c]

Interesting and how it was applied in Bagration , the way it routed Army Centre in just over a month

[@MrJamesDoz]

Blitzkrieg was more about getting into the rear and disrupting the enemy command and control capabilities.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

If you could really call what the Germans did blitzkrieg. Technically, they thought that name was a bad media joke.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@ironstarofmordian7098
Who's "they?" The Germans?

[@markmulligan571]

The difference between Soviet and Nazi military doctrine was as follows. Blitzkrieg served as the tactics of a venomous snake: bite the victim quickly with minimal effort and risk (panzer breakthrough), inject paralyzing toxins and wait for the victim to deteriorate (hq, artillery and logistic attacks), swallow whole and allow victim to dissolve in digestive fluids (infantry followup). Soviet deep battle doctrine served as the tactics of a constrictor: squeeze and throttle the victim with raw muscle power (infantry and artillery attacks), bite the victim to induce terror and paralysis (tank attacks), swallow the paralyzed and crushed victim for eventual complete consumption (strategic followup). The first tactic serves (for awhile) if you are smaller and or weaker than your opponent(s). The second if you outweigh them. Simple enough.

[@ID0NTFUCKRATS]

Jesus christ! That was fairly accurate but just sounds horrible. But why wouldn't you do both at the same time

[@markmulligan571]

@@ID0NTFUCKRATS What are your resources compared to your enemy's? Crushing superiority, the second version; otherwise the first.

[@harrylewis3980]

Great video!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thanks. :) I'd be happy to take suggestions for my next video.

[@chrisbricky7331]

I studied the massive Soviet Airborne part of the deep battle doctrine like they attempted at Vyazma. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyazma_airborne_operation
thanks the hard work, this is an interesting discussion. Chris

[@gabe75001]

Who are your favorite Red Army Generals? I’m sure Rokossovsky is one of your favorites. Mine’s are Vasilevsky, Rokossovsky, and Konev. Honestly, Zhukov was great but a tad bit overrated.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Rokossovsky is definitely correct. I am not sure about Vasilevsky but a professor I spoke to said he was his favorite. I am also digging a bit into Vatutin.

[@gabe75001]

Blitz Of The Reich All I can remember from Vatutin was how he got outplayed by Manstein in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov and established Manstein as a legendary figure

[@Kriegter]

Mine is Tukhachevsky

[@Kriegter]

And Vatutin?

[@aronvstheworld]

absolutely amazing video

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

If you enjoyed this explanation then you should see a more detailed explanation of Deep Battle in part 1 of my Operation Bagration series.

[@alexplotkin3368]

Good video on deep operations.
Another officer who contributed to deep operations theory and served with Tukachevsky was Colonel G.S. Isserson. Isserson wrote several books and papers on deep operations and trained many senior red army generals and marshals on deep operations in the 1930s. Stalin had him arrested in 1941 and sent him to the Gulag. But his writings influenced officers such as Marshal Vasilevsky, General Zakharov, Marshal Bagramian, General Shtemenko, General Antonov who put deep operations into practice.
Read 'Architect of Soviet Victory: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson' by Richard Harrison. The book has three great chapters on deep operations.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Thank you for the suggestion. You would love my Operation Bagration series as I have mentioned Isserson as well as Triandafillov.

[@Bruno_Wosniak]

Nice video man, thank you!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

no problem. Be sure to subscribe for more!

[@Becks670]

awesome work man!

[@Wustenfuchs109]

In short, Bewegungskrieg (or Blitzkrieg, how ever you want to call the mobile war theory that Germans used) focused on FINDING a weak spot and exploiting it. Deep Battle was focused on CREATING weak points along the front for exploitation. In the end, operational result was the same, encirclement of the enemy by advancing to its rear section.
Differences in approach came from the respective nature of the country using it. Germans could not spare men and material - so a weak point should be found and focused on. This made Blitzkrieg effective, but more situational. Soviets, on the other hand, thought that they could spare men and material to create weak points in the front, thus Deep Battle was born. It was more costly than Blitzkrieg, but it was less situational - as instead of finding a weak point on the front, you engaged the whole front and created said weaknesses.
This is another example how the same military thinking had different application based on the country that utilized it, due to the inherent limitations of the said country.
And let me point one thing out - none of those things was revolutionary or new. Theories on the wars of movement have been developing for decades, especially during the Great War, and every army in the world that took part in it had a version of it.
For example, even Kingdom of Yugoslavia had it, but instead of tanks (which they did not have, or at least not of sufficient quality and quantity) they planned on using specialized shock troops, a mix between commandos and assault engineers, on battalion level, that would break through the enemy line and force the enemy to pull back to consolidate (and thus allow the advance of the rest of the front) or risk encirclement and enemy pushing into their rear - although due to the lack of motorized units, on a much smaller scale. Like German Stosstruppen, but much more heavily armed and trained.
Other nations, like UK, USA, France... all had Deep Battle/Blitzkrieg like military doctrines tailored to their nation's specific advantages. But the thinking was the same in all of them. They are not really different things.

[@ogram6512]

This was great!

[@bluewho4071]

Nice video! My only issue is with the units in your diagram, nextime different colors might help visualising. Nevertheless pretty straight forward and well delivered explanation.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yeah apologies for that. This was one of my first videos.

[@bluewho4071]

@@BlitzOfTheReich Congratulations then, is well done overall!

[@triantis35]

The actual deep battle doctrine was Vlademir Triandafylov's work.He wrote 3 books on the matter.The books are also in English.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

that is true, but rather than having 1 definite author, deep battle came about with the amalgamation of the ideas of Tukhachevsky, Triandafillov, and Isserson.

[@Kriegter]

@@BlitzOfTheReich what about Svechin?

[@sethheristal9561]

So the essential difference between blitzkrieg and deep battle is that the former has tactical or operational objectives (destroy enemy force), while deep battle always has strategic objectives (destroy the enemy capability to fight). This is enough to explain: conservation of force rather than encircle&destroy, reliance on tire rather than airforce, etc.

[@perun814]

Blitzkrieg is not a war doctrine.And on its own it is not adequate for modern wars.Operational art however is perfect.And thats why it was adopet...not just by us military (who is the strongest pratinioner)..but literally the entire world ..all major militaries (even the german,, has adopted a variant of it.
When the Us military attacks Iraq and Sadam Husein it uses Operational art and the results were devastating. Even the planers at Pentagon were shocked how rapidly the Iraq military disinigrated.
It always begings...What constitus succes.
thats for the politicians to decide
operation bagration literally disinigrated the entire army group center.German most powerful army group.1mil man and 2200 tanks.
and war in the middle east produces a similar effect for the Americans.

[@LinkTheSamurai]

4:28 who did this picture? It's pretty cool.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I really don't know

[@vadimnagano]

Illustration to Russian tabletop game "Battle for Danube" by Zvezda manufacturer kordegardia.ru/products-page/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8B/%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE-1941-%D0%B3-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B7-2/

[@nestormakhno9266]

While I agree that without lend lease the USSR would not have been able to implement deep battle. However, this does not mean that anything other than unconditional surrender would have been accepted as the Soviets has lost far to much and were in a position in which the Germans could be defeated. This means that pursuing a moderate peace with Germany would have been seen as a betrayal by the government and makes no sense in a strategic sense as the war had effectively been won by the Soviets it was simply a question of when, not if the third Reich would fall

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

this is true to an extent but I do believe the war could have become static once both sides had sufficiently depleted their forces. The Soviets still could have implemented deep battle, but it would have been at a later date and more local levels.

[@alexsveles343]

It begins whir a question.
What constitutes Success.
Do we have to disarm the enamy and remove his war making potential or do we have to destroy him completely

[@gillesmeura3416]

Dear Blitz,
Thank you for this video, the "Blitzkrieg" myth is a fascinating subject, and it is indeed interesting to see how the lesser known "Deep Battle / Deep Operations" soviet concept seems to be in fact the source of contemporary conventional warfare doctrine.
To dig deeper into the subject I recommend this USAHEC conference on Isserson : czcams.com/video/56N9iPjQDIU/video.html
You can find the first of Isserson's book here, in PDF : www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/OperationalArt.pdf
Cheers,
Gilles

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

thank you for the recommendations. I already own Isserson's book.

[@TRD315]

I think it would had been better If the USSR used artillery as the Nazis retreated then start committing the doctrine of operation deep battle. They maybe did that it's just People don't realize that it was the Soviets that one WW2 not the West.

[@orange8420]

Blitzkrieg concentrate on small front
Deep operation concentrate in whole front

[@walangchahangyelingden8252]

So, this is at the operational-strategical level. Very interesting.

[@apalahartisebuahnama7684]

This "deep battle" operation only work if you get a numerical superiority over the enemy both in land and air

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

in a certain sector. but warfare is all about getting local numerical superiority. it is even like that in German doctrine.

[@christian9125abd]

which doctrin works without numerial superiority in land and air ? in case you not know the awnser: none, if you have no superior force you won't win any offenive (there are a few percent of offensives that will be one, but who wants to rely on a luck in war?

[@gabrielcaballero4817]

What would of changed if Mikhail wasn't killed during the purge? How would this affect Barbarossa?

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I am unsure entirely but I think the Red Army would have lost a lot less troops in the beginning phase of Barbarossa. This being said It seems the Soviets were geared for offensive operations even with Tukhachevsky so I am unsure they would be able to employ successful defensive strategies to stop pockets from forming.

[@51TGM71]

The Purge by Stalin of the Red Army got ridd of far more people than just Tukhachevsky.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yes of course, and nobody is disputing that, but Tukhachevsky was one of the main architects of Soviet battle doctrine. If he survived I presume his staff and members of his 'clan' would have survived as well.

[@Cyberpunkerify]

Finland might have been a Soviet

[@lemonkesyndicate6788]

you're right, in term of tank, gun, plane and all that stuff the lend-lease didn't player a singificant role in the succes of the soviet army but the trucks and logistic that it brought to them was vital, if no landing in western europe a ceasfire would have to be put in place but this ceasfire would have been to soviet advantage sinc theyr were the strongest, had at this point a better economy and simply pushed them back all the way to poland, what I could see is as stalin proposed hitler after stalingrad a return to pre WWI borders and maybe a fex more concessions like in galicia for example.

[@timothy1949]

a lot of people, either they are uneducated, or they do it deliberately, trying to remove Soviet contribution to the final allied victory. they would also conveniently say that "because of Lendlease, the Soviet was able to beat the Germans", but the facts are:
1) The Soviet handled 75% of the Nazis, the allied fought 25% of the Nazis in the western front
2) Hitler saw the Soviet as the biggest threat, that is why most of his most elite units, like most the SS divisions/SS panzer divisions were deployed in the Eastern, also, most of his "game changers" that were equipped to the most elite units, were also deployed in the East against the Red Army as a result.
3) Land lease was an important part to the allied victory, but saying that because of land lease so the soviets won is a mistake. The soviets received 11.3 billion, while the British received 31.4 billion. Yes, the British receive 3x more from the US from land lease.

[@nicholasmocalis589]

Blitzkrieg is better on the tactical level since your army is eliminating many units at once by surrounding the enemy but your advance will be slower on the strategic level while Deep battle is better on the strategic level because your army will force the enemy to retreat but may take high losses as a consequence since you have no air cover. The main goal of the soviets in the first few years of the war from 1942 and 1943 was to force the germans into a stalemate by sacrificing poorly trained red army soldiers so that when 1944 and 1945 came around they could use better trained soldiers to conduct offensive operations more effectively since the casualties evened out by 1944 and 1945. Source David Glantz where he cites casualty figures by year of the eastern front. The soviets had to do it because the germans were at their doorstep and taken them by suprise so they needed to send in as many men as possible regardless of training quality since it was a war for their existance as a diverse group of people. In the source david glantz puts the figures of soviet dead to german dead as a 3 to 1 advantage for the germans from 1941 to 1943 where in 1941 it is higher in terms of overall casualties due to Soviet prisoners taken into account. By 1944 and 1945 it was about 1 to 1 in terms of dead.

[@wander67]

The problem with blitzkrieg is that since the whole point is advancing as fast as you can, Germans couldn't build up supply lines in time, and partisans were constantly harrasing supply lines slowing down germans even more. Blitzkrieg fully relies on shock factor, capture enemy positions and supply lines before they reorganize and regroup. But once the shock from rapid advance is gone, and enemy had regrouped, blitzkrieg is falling apart. Exactly what happend during battle of Moscow.

[@raylast3873]

The assertion that lend-lease was actually vital to the Soviet war effort seems pretty thin on evidence given that indeed „LL was not large in comparison to the overall economy“. I think this is simply an assumption caused by a massive underestimation of Soviet industrial capacity. In reality, logistics map pretty directly to industrial capacity and organization. You can‘t simply make up for that with foreign aid.
This is actually something we should learn from WWI: in that war, the Russian Empire was also received extensive material support from the Allies, and this increased significantly when the United States entered the war. The worse things went, the more the Russian leadership leaned on allied support. However, this did practically nothing to affect the outcome of the war, simply because Russia at that point was neither economically nor politically/socially able to compete with the German empire. That obviously changed between 1918 and 1941, but this situation should be a lesson on the limits of outside support: foreign aid can‘t overcome the internal limits of belligerent powers.

[@perun814]

Now the German generals spoke always of a initial artillery bombardemet,,,or Katjusaha rocket bombardment, that lasted around 30 min to 1 hour.Then a short pause then the 5th guard and other mechanized forces emerge,,,,The biggest shock to the germans was the transformation and speed of this transformation….of the red army,,,From initially poorly led troops to powerful well organized well equipped and well led units.And that happend in just one yeAr,Guderian already noticed it at battle of Moscow and this is why German generals advocated a truce whit Russia to Hitler…Because they belived Hitler can no longer win
By 1944 the red army has become so powerful and so good that it praticed its own blitzkrieg on the nazis.Almost like toying whit Wehrmacht if u will

[@pogdog5858]

hey can you explain to me why the soviets didnt send their tanks with the infantry and just keep them in reserve? You seem to be very dedicated with responding comments, i hope you answer me soon =)

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

The Soviets viewed their tanks as the exploitation force and didn't want to wear them down. Infantry was used to soften the enemy up. The Germans loved doing the opposite and often used tanks first.

[@ID0NTFUCKRATS]

Well they would use shock armies which were partially mechanized with tanks to make a push back the enemy from the spot that you want to exploit then they would send in the tanks

[@DanThomas1161]

I think Russian side of the story would totally disagree with the impact of Land Lease in the way you describe it in your video here.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Dragan Tomas it doesn’t make them right

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Dragan Tomas it doesn’t make them right

[@user-xe3ng6sj9o]

well trucks they sent were really useful but in other equipment like tanks landlease was useless compared to what soviet factories could do after a safe evacuation to Ural and Siberia

[@alpharius6206]

There's nothing bad in the help sent by allies. It would've been better though to clarify that it was not charity, and stuff was paid for with gold.

[@AlexanderSeven]

Not Tukhachevsky, but Vladimir Triandafillov, it's even mentioned in wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Actually according to wikipedia they both invented it and came into a strategic partnership to advocate it and study it. Most if not all the academic literature usually cites Tukhachevsky as the source of the doctrine. Wikipedia isn't infallible.

[@triantis35]

@@BlitzOfTheReich Actually Triandafyllov was under Tukhachevsky and did all the work.When Triandafylloov was going with 10 generals to present the new study to the great military board the plain crashed(makes you think)

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

@@triantis35 I have another (Operation Bagration) highlighting the contributions of Triandafyllov.

[@HeWhoLaugths]

Very good video

[@carlhallstrom3330]

Sorry to be a bother but where did you get the info that tukhachevsky was behind the theory or concept of deep battle? Most military historians actually put the credit to someone namned Georgii Samoilovich Isserson ^^

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Carl Hallström i heard that too but also heard shaposhnikov. The reason tukhachevsky pops up frequently is that he was pivotal to the development of the concept and the implementation of it into the red army. Think about it. He was a prominent commander in mobility during the Russian civil war- a key concept in deep battle.

[@triantis35]

That is also not true the actual study and work was done by V. TRIANDAFILOV his books are there and his battle expirience proves it

[@Venator-Class_Star_Destroyer]

im here to learn this and to win countless hoi4 and company of heroes matches

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

lol this would be hard to implement in HOI4 given how gamey frontlines can be.

[@Venator-Class_Star_Destroyer]

@@BlitzOfTheReich i can try. and if it succeeds. well you wil be seeing me in Paris

[@kevlarburrito6693]

This was pretty well done. Word of advice, if you don't mind, don't use Wikipedia as a primary resource. Use the articles it links as the resource. It'll help you to see whether or not the information on the Wikipedia page is accurate or if it's not.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

oh this has been a policy of this channel's for a very long time. This is one of my oldest videos.

[@kevlarburrito6693]

@@BlitzOfTheReich yeah I had just noticed the date after I commented. Still it was pretty well put together.
If you’re looking for more info on the subject check out the book The Anvil of War. Some great first hand accounts in there

[@Helljumper556]

Are there any English Books on this subject?

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Plenty starting with When titans clashed by Glantz and House

[@veljkostevanovic7597]

Yeah let's advance on Moscow and leave these 2 million Soviet troops behind our lines...

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I mean. That's what Rokossovsky kinda did in Bagration, except he contained them. :p

[@veljkostevanovic7597]

Blitz Of The Reich if you are referring to the Courland pocket, the only reason it worked was 1) Soviets had air and sea superiority so sea evacuation or resupply for the Germans was out of the question 2) it was a peninsula which can be effectively blocked by far fewer troops than an all-around encirclement - all other large concentrations of encircled German troops were eliminated before Berlin was assaulted (not to mention it too was first encircled). Even Sun Tzu advises avoiding long sieges.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

no I am referring to Bagration. He bypassed pockets around Minsk and Mogilev and pretty much dealt with them later.

[@veljkostevanovic7597]

Blitz Of The Reich The same as the Germans did in 1941 with the pockets of the Red Army.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Not necessarily. It was really the case that they had difficulty containing them since they didn't have mechanized forces. The Soviets used infantry on the initial frontal attack whereas it seems the Germans used tanks.

[@DeezNuts-cg9gl]

We're now seeing various phases of this in Ukraine

[@AYVYN]

I would assume they came up with something different. That would be like using Napoleonic tactics during WW2.

[@jackparker8602]

@@AYVYN Considering their performance, Napoleonic tactics being used is plausible.

[@rat_king-]

Soviet onion. did well. deep battle is most efficient when you can pick up your tanks on the way though.

[@iknow4913]

Amazing the Soviet Military was able to amass, and assemble troops and equipment while the country was in such a bad position. I think its sheer landmass made it able to do so. Bc the Germans mad it damn near to Moscow before the Soviets countered deeply

[@mats92b22]

The objective of the blitzkrieg tactic is not to encircle the enemy, the objective is to avoid confrontation and bypassing enemy strongpoints and move forward to the enemy rear areas were the enemy is weakly defended.

[@wander67]

That's both the strength and weakness of blitzkrieg. Because if enemy is able to regroup and halt the breakthrough, blitzkrieg is falling apart, since blitzkrieg fully relies on speed you can't use too much of heavy artillery and heavy tanks as they would slow you down. Not only that, but supply lines just couldn't be builded as fast as the blitzkrieg was capturing new territory. Not only, but lack of infrastructure in eastern Europe, mud and partisans made it even worse. Exactly what happens in battle of Moscow. When red army regrouped and halted German breakthrough, Germans have found themselves without heavy artillery and heavy tanks, almost no supply lines, they didnt have any defence positions set nor equipment to entrench since that would slow them down.
And then came the Russian winter, to which Germans were completely unprepared. Germans hoped to capture Moscow before winter, since giving both summer and winter clothes in complete lack of any supply lines is quite a challenge, especially when you have so much partisans that make it even worse. If Germans wanted to prepare for winter, they would be forced tohalt the advantage and build supply lines. Which means that red army had the chance to regroup, reorganize, entrench, fortify their positions and red army soldiers would no longer desert and abandon their positions out of panic from German rapid breakthrough.

[@mats92b22]

@@wander67 Yeah Blitzkrigs weakness comes from it strengths

[@LinhHLe]

Deep Battle - Operational level revealed to the west in 1990

[@WhoElseLikesPortal]

GUYS what is the song in the very beginning called please

[@user-jg9uy1df3d]

this strategy is prone to get encircle if you cant pin down the enemy at all front and the enemy have the same number as yours. the only thing you will encounter is the reserve element

[@user-jg9uy1df3d]

the next problem is if u try to capture a city behind enemy line, if that ur objective the next problem will look like caesar battle of alesia.

[@mikebond6060]

Wait is the man in your profile picture Rokossovsky?

[@randomunfunnyname8834]

I wouldn't put so much work onto the American lend lease because it added up to 5% of the total production, ill get some sources
What role did the military and economic assistance of our Allies play in 1941 and 1942? Great exaggerations are widely current in Western literature.
Assistance in accordance with the Lend-Lease Act widely publicized by the Allies was coming to our country in much smaller quantities than promised. There can be no denial that the supplies of gun-powder, high octane petrol, some grades of steel, motor vehicles, and food-stuffs were of certain help. But their proportion was insignificant against the overall requirements of our country within the framework of the agreed volume of supplies. As regards tanks and aircraft supplied to us by the British and American Governments, let us be frank: they were not popular with our tank-men and pilots especially the tanks which worked on petrol and burned like tender.
- Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 391-392
As far the armaments, what I would like to say is that we received under the Lend-Lease Act from the United States and Britain 18.7 thousand aircraft, 10.8 thousand tanks and 9600 artillery pieces. All that comprised 12, 10.4, and 2% respectively of the total amount of armaments that the Soviet army was equipped with during the war. Undoubtedly, that was of definite significance, but really there is no ground for talk about a decisive role.
- Zhukov, Georgii. Memoirs of Marshal Zhukov. London: Cape, 1971, p. 684

[@Brslld]

Even if the allies sent a million tanks you still cant drive them all the way to berlin without trucks to supply them. Lend lease is literally just to send trucks because nearly every vehicle factory is turned to tank ones.

[@GenghisVern]

Is it fair to call this "Breakthrough & Exploitation"?

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

deep exploitation

[@fulcrum2951]

The very sensual kind of deep

[@MyrMerek]

You will interested perhaps in the sino-mongolian-soviet operatiins in the extreme orient in the 1920s-1930s, before the sino-japanese war. This is where soviet doctrine of the 20s was tested

[@TheBendablespoons]

It's a shame tukachevsky had to plot with the Germans. Would have made a great general.

[@alexsveles343]

Concept such as fraturazation….or total collapse of opponents ability to resist properly…Russians used variants of operational art against Napoleon ….then of course magnum opus whit Operation Bagration

[@Randomusername56782]

I’m more of an airland battle and multi domain ops type of guy.

[@anandnairkollam]

Bagraateeon. Koniiev

[@MrJamesDoz]

you forgot about the 600 thousand at Bialystok Poland.

[@kaletovhangar]

Not really.It was 270k at Byalistok-Minsk pocket that were captured.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

0:48 - Planking game too STRONK

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

they ded doe

[@steventhompson399]

I think issersun survived the purge that killed tugachevsky but stalin arrested him after he finished his book

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yes, I believe that he died in the 70s.

[@Strongnurgling]

Thanks i forgot the strategy works to hoi4

[@zhubotang927]

Tactically they might have been subpar with western armed forces but strategically they are on parity if not superior.

[@fiddlersgreen2433]

They were not "Tactically subpar". All sides used the same tactical tricks. It was just a matter of training level and urgency that caused much more casualties for the soviet side.

[@nicbahtin4774]

"Always go deep"~Red army poverb

[@lawsonj39]

Your assertion that the Russians couldn't have done it without Lend Lease needs a lot more evidence in support. It's not enough just to make a statement and let it go at that.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

that's why I have made other videos on the subject.

[@voya8480]

How many truck???? During the war the USSR provided an unknown number of shipments of rare minerals to the US Treasury, as a form of cashless repayment of Lend-Lease. All is paid in full!

[@Wobbothe3rd]

Another good video. One quibble: I doubt the Stavka (esp Stalin) would ever surrender no matter what once it had acheived objectives it gained by 1943 even if USA had withdrawn from the war at that very point. Before Kursk? Maybe... but definitely not after. Now if you're assuming USA had never given any aid from 1939 on... maybe but then you'd have to consider how that would affect strategic planning on the Soviet side. (Re: claims on value of USA aid to SU from 39 on)

[@solarfreak1107]

Wobbo Yeah after Stalingrad, German victory was virtually impossible.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

After more research I personally think that if the US were never involved the Russians would mainly be fighting a defensive war, however we could see a treaty similar to the conclusion of the Winter War, where Russia would cede some territory but not enough to compromise national security. The reason being that US trucks really did help the offensive capability of the Red Army. But you are definitely right. Stalingrad was decisive but in my opinion it was Kursk that really cemented a Soviet victory or at least swung the pendulum to their favor.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I suggest you watch my lecture on lend lease so that you may reconsider your position.

[@danmorgan3685]

@Blitz Of The Reich
I agree about Kursk. After that the Germans never launched a major offensive. They were pretty much a spent force at the *start* of the Kursk battle as they went in with no reserves. Soviet casualties were very high but German losses were irreplaceable.
Without US aid the USSR and Germany may have come to a separate peace but I don't think it would have involved ceding much land to Germany. The German position just wasn't strong enough. Throughout the war they could never secure their rear areas from partizans for example. They simply lacked the men and resources. The war wasn't going to end on other fronts either. The main German war aim in the south was to secure the Caspian oil reserves. If they had stopped the war at any point before then defeat was inevitable. Romanian and Bulgarian oil was never going to be able to support the war effort in the long run.
I think any peace agreement between Germany and the USSR would have required the Germans to withdraw to the pre-war Soviet borders. Maybe they could have occupied the whole of Poland and secured land lost by Finland. Anything less would have lead to the continuation of the war. Even with that it would have been a stalling tactic by Germany to try and hold onto Western Europe and keep Italy in the war.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I agree with the importance of oil in this case and that the Germans really lacked a good reservist system unlike the Soviets. I would however say that I personally think the Soviets would have given into some demands particularly in the Baltic and possibly in Bessarabia. I am not sure about Finland though however the previous two fit more into the German narrative. Lithuania because of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and Bessarabia because of Rumanias claims. I doubt Rumania would have accepted nothing else especially since they committed so much to the Eastern front.

[@perun814]

the problem for the russians was that the russian army was nowhere near ready for war in 1941.And as a result of stalins purges it was led by political comisars and not the russian military general staff.But russia did have some of their old guard left And just before battle of moscow..Zhukov takes over and institutes massive changes. Just 3 months later the effects were evident

[@Mentol_]

Purge dont affect to red army - this is myth. There is documents which show that army before and after purge had same problems.

[@wander67]

​@@Mentol_Of course they had same problems, that's the whole point. Those who could make red army better were either purged, or simply afraid to criticize red army. Stalin was not stupid or bloodthirsty by any means, he was a strong leader USSR needed. But he was still a dictator, and his purges made USSR lose a lot of talented men and women, who would benefit red army and Soviet economy.

[@alexsveles343]

Russians have a incredible military tradition,..especially the imperial Russia….the frunze military academy.
Just ask the Germans where they always go when some new shit erupts…
The Prussian or German general staff was a frequent guest at frunze….this goes long long time…maybe even 500 years

[@DivePlane13]

I really don't think that Moscow was truly the objective. I firmly believe that it was the oil fields in the south.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

I am speaking of 1941.

[@WildBillCox13]

Hitler changed objectives frequently, citing in turn economic, political, or military objectives, as the mood struck him. It was War By Whimsy, pure and simple. Check out "The Russo German War 1941-45" by Albert Seaton. Well researched and often quotes primary sources.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Yes that is true. When the war broke out his objective was 'encircle as many armies as possible', then that went to 'take Moscow' although he disagreed with Halder on this. From then on objectives fluctuated. For example Stalingrad wasn't an original objective in Case blue but slowly became one.

[@armorguy75]

The biggest mistake the Germans made was that they really did not have any real strategic objectives.

[@fulcrum2951]

Pretty sure it was the sweet black oil was the primary goal, the rest of the german leadership were usually smart on the tactical level

[@vovetas]

Wait a minute, lend-lease was just 4-5% of total war material used in a war. Did this material help? Yes, for sure! Did this turn tide of war? No of course. Hypothetically speaking red army would have won without allied help. Furthermore it is hard can be called help, when each item sent was paid in hard currency.

[@alpharius6206]

True.
There's nothing bad in help. Except soviets paid with gold for the lend leased stuff. Allies didn't do charity and still made profits out of the war, and most of the people forget about that.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Germans had no way to keep sustained war economy with frontline of summer 1943. Whole occupied Europe had unsustainable shortage of food and fuel.

[@mpravica]

The Great Patriotic War a.k.a. the Germano-Slavic genocidal race war. Thanks for a great video!

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

honestly, it was 100% a race war. Stalin even used Russian nationalism in a lot of his propaganda too.

[@WildBillCox13]

Wolf mounted Papashaw gunners . . . Tolkien missed a spot.

[@freedomordeath89]

You say that Bòitzkrieg focused on air power and close support from the air, I would say that thats wrong. Germans didn't really use the airforce as propaganda or modern people think. It was mainly used in a interdiction and harassment role or strategic bombing, close support was difficult to achieve and it didn't bring that many results. Only in the initial phase it was doable, after that the mobile war doctrinewitht he shifting frontline amde it almost impossible to give accurate support with 1930s 1940s technology.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

that is true for the mid to late war but the concept of Schwerzpunkt and German doctrine did lend its ears to air support.

[@freedomordeath89]

@@BlitzOfTheReich Assuming you are talking about the 1930s but the root of german mobile warfer is way older than the airforce, it could be traced to WW1, the 1870s Franco-Prussian war, the war against Austria or even the 7 years war since the basic concept is the same: concentrate your forces thanks to your greate mobility and achieve a decisve victory that will make you win despite beeing numerically and logistically inferior.
Hell, you could say that the same tactic was used by Blucher against Napoleon...
In my opinion the role of the airforce in german doctrines was way way waaaaay smaller than what people think...it was more of a fancy addition to an already established doctrine. After all CAS bombers were only a minimal fraction of the Luftwaffe and only with the employment of tank busters (Hs 129 and Ju87 G) we see an actual efficent CAS support. Before that bombers just harrassed enemy columns or strongpoints and were not part of the doctrine in itself...

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

well the German method of warfare pretty much relies on tactical and operational brilliance without worrying about the strategic theater. Deep battle is essentially the opposite. Both strategies weren't really relevant in Napoleonic warfare as armies were not mobile enough to really cut large units off that much. Can you give me a source?

[@freedomordeath89]

@@BlitzOfTheReich Im not saying modern warfare is the same as the XIX century or so. I'm talking just about MOBILE warfare, not deep doctrine. Bewegungskrieg . and Schwerpunkt is a phase of the manouvering, not a doctrine in itself.
Thats exactly what Frederik the Great or Blucher did: manouvre their forces untill they could find a place where to give battle on a advantagious field like Waterloo...and then you look at Sedan or Tannemberg and its the same...and in WW2 the tactic was the same basicallywith the difference that the Russians could keep retreating and so this "decisive battle" that the Germans were looking for never happened...
The focus was on MOVEMENT and manouvre, thats why the Airforce doesnt matter, it was not part of the doctrine, it was only an useful tool to achieve the initial Schwerpunkt but after the penetration it was relegated back to tactical and strategic support.

[@lif3andthings763]

Lend lease didn’t matter that much.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

it didn't in the early war, but it 100% did by the late war.

[@austinjimson356]

What's the song from 0:00 to 0:13??

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Requiem Dies Irae - Mozart

[@austinjimson356]

Thanks a lot

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

no problem

[@dedeinan]

You should search Turkish war of independence.... the first and best deep beatle ...

[@alexsveles343]

But remember...the imperial russia had a incredible military tradition. Frunze accadamy was often regarded in Victorian times as the best.Certanlt where germans send their generals to study.. cus prussia(germany) closes ties whit russia

[@servicedesk4881]

1. The Blitzkrieg idea was developed in the 30s.
2. Guderian's drives during the invasion of France could hardly be called tactical. While many French units did surrender with most of their fighting capacity intact because their HQ was overrun and they were confused and surrounded, the Manstein plan, led by Guderian, accomplished in 9 days was Germany could not do in 4 years during WWI, and the 2nd spearhead "tactically" took France out of the War.
3. Let's not muddle Hitler's mandate and what Blitzkrieg is. The majority of German generals wanted to drive on Moscow (using Blitzkrieg whenever it made sense). Hitler overruled them, but this doesn't change the definition of Blitzkrieg, which is the rapid penetration of enemy lines without concern for one's flank.
4. I am not sure there was much difference in what each side was doing (Deep Battle Doctrine Vs. Blitzkrieg) that can't be accounted for by the reality of their unique situations. Here is a partial list:
- The Germans had better officer training and encouraged single unit autonomy. Guderian hardly had to speak to his commanders during the battle for instance.
- The Soviets had a top down command control style means that the scale has to be larger to obtain success- the motions are less precise with their coordination.
- When the Soviets finally started copying Manstein in the Ukraine just before he was dismissed by Hitler (for having his units escape the encirclement oddly), they started achieving greater success.
The analysis fails to account for the fact that the Soviets were growing stronger and the Germans weaker by the month on the Eastern Front from early 43.
Comparing the Soviet brute force steamrolling of the Germans in 1944 with the German invasion of 1941 requires more than looking at the distance covered, though the Germans, taking detours, did cover more ground in 3 months (Jun-Sept 1941) than Konev in 6 months in 1944.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

1. Yes
2. But many instances during France showed that luck played a role and that the Germans did not prioritize deep exploitation. They lacked motorized units and didn't focus on penetrating France's industrial rear.
3. Moscow was not an original objective at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Blitzkrieg is the rapid penetration but it isn't the rapid exploitation of deep rear elements like factories and logistic lines. Moscow was a propaganda objective rather than a logistical objective.
4. The Soviets greatly simplified their military immediately after the disastrous encirclement's in Bialystok and Minsk. Encouraging the view of a rigid top down system isn't exactly true based on how Soviet units were simplified, command was simplified into theaters, and when mechanized corps were abolished. This shows the opposite of what you said. That the Soviets were willing to give commanders more autonomy and room.
The Soviets were indeed growing stronger but didn't surpass a 2:1 margin until around 1944. Soviet force advance in 1944 is still comparable to 1941 because front line units were roughly the same. When Germany invaded the Soviet union, the Soviets had much less front line troops on the Polish sector. In 1944 the situation was reversed, however the Soviets advanced much further within the same time frame than the Germans did during Operation Barbarossa.
In Barbarossa, the Germans advanced 1000 kilometers in the span of 5 months. During Bagration and subsequent operations, the Soviets advanced more than 1500 kilometers from Orsha to the gates of Budapest. Although from Orsha to Warsaw it was only 800 km. Some could argue it was even 2000 kilometers from Orsha to Sofia, Bulgaria. This shows that the Soviet advance was conducted twice as fast as the German advance in 1941. Compare this to the 1000 km axis for Moscow/Leningrad and 1500 km axis for Rostov. It shows that the Soviets definitely advanced far quicker.
It is not about the parity as it is about the priorities set in motion. The German mentality did not focus on deep rear exploitation's.

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

To say Guderian and Manstein preferred deep exploitation is a bit odd since motorized units were nowhere near Dunkirk at the time of the encirclement. And the reason Hitler focused on Kiev after the battles of Smolensk was primarily because he saw Ukraine as an economy target (Donbass). See by showing that about Guderian and destroying the enemies will it shows the deep rooted problem of German military thinking- that wars could be won by purely tactical sense. They did it in World war 1 as well and failed. Also the reason I am critical of blitzkrieg is because it did not have rigid phases and in the beginning to mid war Hitler actually gave a lot of autonomy to his Generals.

[@servicedesk4881]

You do know that Hitler ordered German troops to halt the advance towards Dunkirk from May 24th to May 26th, giving the allies time to catch their breath? Without this three days, the Dunkirk defensive posture likely would have been undermined a week or more earlier than it was. Here is a link to one diagram (not necessarily the best, depicting the action when it resumed. You should realize that it is not simply three days lost, but the initiative as well.
I have no idea why you are associating Guderian with WWI thinking. The exact opposite is the truth. Read his exploits in France and USSR. After quickly capturing Smolensk he argued vehemently with Hitler about turning South as he had the enemy on the run and could have (in all likelihood) captured Moscow if his (and other mobile units) had focused on that.
Of course if Hitler had prioritized starting Barbarossa 3-5 weeks earlier, they might have accomplished both objectives with ease.
The Donbass would have been captured anyways as the Army had crossed the Dneipr at Kremenchug. Of course it would have not come as easily and with as many prisoners, but this was Hitler's failed trade off not "German thinking" The top German generals did not have WWI style thinking.
media1.britannica.com/eb-media/52/195152-004-63549777.jpg

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Rundstedt actually gave the first halt order and after the war he tried to paint it like it was Hitler's idea. In Dunkirk there were no motorized units to help liquidate the Dunkirk pocket which would have been disastrous for German tanks, given the marshy terrain surrounding Dunkirk, as well as the urban nature of the area. Also a large pocket of 40,000 French soldiers provided delaying actions in Lille. I've never heard of an army attacking an urban port with just tanks and no support troops. The reason I associate Guderian with ww1 thinking is because there is no solid evidence he aimed at Moscow for strategic reasons to cripple the Red Army's industry, rather it was more political. If Guderian had been aiming for a strategic vision to limiting Soviet production, then he would have concentrated on the resource rich area of the Donbass. Most German officers had placed much more tactical importance in warfare since Moltke. It's not Guderians fault, just his militaries doctrine.
Actually the Red Army prioritized armor to the south and the Southern and Southwestern Fronts were well supplied, which is why some of the first successful Soviet counter-attacks were in the South (Rokossovskys ambush by Brody). Hitler was absolutely right to be concerned by the concentration of modern Soviet tanks that could have easily struck Guderians rear. German anti tank rifles could not penetrate the armor and the German war machine quickly ground to a halt whenever it encountered large KV 1 or T 34 formations.
books.google.co.uk/books?id=9ehS8Dg8sdQC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=moltke+german+tradition+tactical+prowess&source=bl&ots=Jww4PS3soP&sig=Mk6vaaZSCn3WbksbrYMbMuRaeaE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj435WBmZDVAhVLJsAKHWgFAxcQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=moltke%20german%20tradition%20tactical%20prowess&f=false

[@Paciat]

Theres 1 big difference between 1941 and 1944. In In 1941 Soviets were concentrating for an offensive themselves (according to their doctrine, troop placement, lack of fortifications, placement of supply depos and airforce). Hitler hit the Soviets and took a lot of Soviet equipment without any fighting. Thats also why Soviets were so disorganized. Soviets had detailed plans to defend their country on the "Stalin Line", but thats until 1939, when they finished their industrialization plan. Thats why they evacuated their industry so well, they had old plans. But Soviets had on plans of defending when they moved 90% of their army 200km west of "Stalin Line" close to the Germans in 1941. Thats why Wehrmacht had no strategic objectives, cause it was a preemptive strike. Heres my source:
czcams.com/video/wYSy80WlmWY/video.html

[@aurelioalmada5288]

Fart fart fart! The allied lease fiasco was nothing but a fart

[@mito88]

kampf mit dem raum.

[@jaketaylor8176]

Don't know why you are convinced the USSR couldn't beat Germany without Lead Lease. They had 144 million people and a pretty effective war industry. They would win without any help

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

Their economy nearly collapsed in 1942 and was over mobilized. The same happened to Germany in 1945..

[@pierren___]

@@BlitzOfTheReich what is over-mobilized ?