Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
German Logistics (or lack of) in WW2 Eastern Front | TIK Q&A 11
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 03. 2019
- German logistics of WW2 were terrible. In fact, the war on the Axis-Soviet Front may have been determined by the poor logistics of the Wehrmacht. The lack of oil and rubber plays it part, but the Germans messed up the use off their trains and railroads. The result was that they could only so far into the Soviet Union before they had to stop. Let's discuss this.
Timestamps -
00:15 Todd R Smith - were chainsaws used in Russia? Why were "corduroy roads" roads surfaced with cut logs, not used?
30:13 Steve Switzer - Despite bad logistics, why was the wehrmacht still formidable until 1943?
37:36 Robert Henry Illston - how detrimental to the Axis/German supply/logistic chain were acts of sabotage?
Main source for the video (no real need for a pinned comment this time) - Creveld, M. "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton." Cambridge University Press, Second Edition 2004.
Source about Corduroy Roads -
history.army.mil/books/wwii/m...
All my other sources on WW2/related -
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. Thank you to my Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
FALL BLAU 1942 - Examining the Disaster of German’s second summer offensive • FALL BLAU 1942 - Exami...
The Myth and Reality of Joseph Stalin’s Order No. 227 “Not a Step Back!” • The Myth and Reality o...
My video entitled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
#ww2 #history
I'm a retired Captain in the military reserve, I was part of the supply forces and in the end, I was Chief of Logistics, directly under the Brigade Quartermaster. We, the supply guys, are usually called the "Party Crashers" because we put limits and reasons to the military planning.
So you have any references you can recommend, to study the subject?
Generaloberst Erhard Raus commander 6th Panzer Div 1 April 1942 - 7 February 1943 "it is no exaggeration to state that the entire Russian campaign will go down in history as one gigantic improvisation."
Apparently Generaloberst Erhard Raus was a man of understatement.
Which wars aren't? No plan survives contact with the enemy. The question is to know HOW the military will improvise once the war starts. No nation is exempt from this.
@@KnightofAges For some reason it has become more common to quote Moltke towards the exact opposite meaning to which he intended. Of course plans must change. But he was an advocate of having a well-put together plausible plan, and then amending that plan. Contrast with, say, OIF and WBush.
@@blockboygames5956a British thing, also valued in Germany
@@Dilley_G45 cheers. :)
Talking about logistics, what a treat! This is definitely the best WW2 themed channel now.
I just wish there were more sources on it. There's literally about 3 books on the subject in English, and they're all vague, even though I suspect an in-depth book on the subject would answer 99% of the unanswered questions about the Eastern Front :(
@@TheImperatorKnight 3 vague books doesn't sound that bad when it comes to the most overlooked aspect of war (logistics). I do envy you :)
Not sure if its detailed enough for you, but a while ago, I came across this article about train logistic on the eastern front on hacker news:
www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/the-influence-of-railways-on-military-operations-in-the-russo-german-war-19411945
I've read it quickly at the time, but it seems quite interesting, and also contains quite a lot of sources which could also be interesting.
Logistics are my biggest love in ww2 and there just aren't enough books on it.
Without a doubt
If you stuck to military history without economics, politics and ideology, you wouldn't be doing good military history.
That's my view too. Thanks for your comment!
Erm.... quite possibly so ....
There wouldn't be a war to begin with without those aspects.
TIK your massive Soviet bias is showing. You’re just as bad as beevor.
@@xatan3318 Your anti-soviet bias is also showing. You are as bad as Chamberlain, Daladier and other bastards who assisted Hitler to build Nazi war machinery from their genetic "anti-bolshevik" mentality. Without Chamberlain, Daladier & Co., there wouldn't be any WWII and not the destruction of a large section of humanity.
Read a report by a US Army officer who studied the German logistics system. He was appalled at how bad German logistics were and was surprised the Germans lasted as long as they did.
Remember however that Germany only planned for three months of war. Either they were going to cause a general collapse of the Soviet Government in that time or they were going to lose WWII. Everything after Barbarossa's failure was simply brilliant German improvisation delaying the inevitable. US assessments of WWII frequently miss this essential point, often intentionally because misrepresenting what the war was all about, who won it, and when it was won serve the narrative the West wanted to create after the war was over.
@@scottwillie6389 Excellent post. Can you give more info. I always thought that the USSR carried the heavy fighting.....this is definitely not how they teach WWII that the Americans won the war on D-day. God Bless.
@@steviedfromtheflyovercount4739 Recommend David Stahel's book on Barbarossa.
A General (think it was Model) said that he could not re-supply ANY of France's defensive points due to ground attack aircraft in 1944.
Russia would have had a very tough time without lend lease. So there's that.
More stories about logistics please.
I'll do my best (although sources are limited)
I have the one book about the reichsbahn... volume 2... and its pretty much worthless as far as military logistics goes. If you're interested on the logistics of the holocaust it is pretty good.
I never realized how much I dont know about WW2 until I began watching your videos. I cant give you enough props.
I always believed redirecting Guderian south was a mistake until understanding the chronic suppy problems Germany had from the start.
Thanks again. Heading over to patreon now.
If you want more details, "Supplying War" paints a bleak picture about Barbarossa's logistics. There's no way Guderian could have got to Moscow in 1941, and it wasn't Hitler's fault.
@@TheImperatorKnight Even avoiding logistics concerns, leaving 600000+ armed soviets on your open southern flank while you gallivant eastward is just out of the question. In 1942 at least they had a major river (the Don) to try and anchor an exposed flank on, and it still ended up disastrously.
@@christophersmith8316 Would have made some wild alt-history though if a German push against Moscow gets slowed down enough for the Southern Flank to send swarms of BT-7s towards the Baltic in the biggest encirclement. BT-7 tank hero of the Soviet Union.
Ebenezer Scrooge Moving those troops South led to the biggest encirclement in history so I don’t really understand why people think that was a stupid move on Hitlers part
I'm in the same boat eb
How amazing was the us navy's ability to support major operations across the vast pacific
Plus it was always case in history that it is easier to do supply via sea/water rather than on land, esspecially when you have such strong navy as i mentioned up...
@@hastalavictoriasiempre2730 True but you need ports and shore facilities. The Navy had a well thought out plan at the start of the war for building all the ships and facilities they would need.
An episode on the logistics behind the Allied invasion of France would be interesting. And that's better documented.
@@MakeMeThinkAgain i agree, they had good plan but what was i reffering is that people dont need to go nuclear about those things and they do. And yes episode about france would be interesting because there to allies get in trouble with supplies similar to germans in russia once they cut deep into german lines and is acctualy good example about what i was talking about,
land/water delivering of supplies.
Watch war factories ,a recent British tv sereis, Liberty ships,Kaiser shipyards,. higgins boatcs ,LSTs What they did was amazing
Especially when you do not have to worry about attacks upon your production facilities have a large unemployed workforce you can utilise and have raw materials
War is economics by other means.
Exactly.
Hey TIK question: So around how many RAS (red army soldiers) died and from where come these high numbers we see in the different statistics ?
One of the most popular quotes we got from Nazis and their supports is : We saved Europe from the invasion of communism ...
Is there anything you know about a possible invasion of UdSSR despite of the great purge etc. into the rest of Europe, which ironicly came with the alliance between the allies and their finishing of NAzi-Germany, the molotov-rippentrop pact and stalin apparent use of the chaotic circumtances during the "phony war". We know or we get offten the message that stalin wanted to restore the pre WW1 borders of the tsaristic Russia and in fact he used the situation to invade and take certain territories, what are you thoughts on this, in relation with the "we saved you from the red peril".
@@TheImperatorKnight "
You shameless plagiarist you, do you also wear stockings of a Sunday evening, mince like the Iron Chancellor calling yourself Barbara? Wild guess but my tea leaves never lie, unless I run out of milk...
War is economics but less frustrating
In that theme, highly recommended reading is The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze.
Logistics. The forgotten element of warfare (well, by most of us armchair generals). Great topic, TIK.
Logistics is key to any warfare - the old adage “An army fights on its’ stomach” - great video
My grand father was in forced labour and i remember him talking(when i was about 11 so i didnt care much about ww2 back then) how they sabotaged a lot of stuff like ammunition and food. Dont remember how, dont remember what exactly, but they did do this and it probably had some effect for the german army
Absolutely.
"Amateurs think about tactics, but professionals think about logistics." -- General Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
Yep, soldiers win battles, logistics win wars.
I have heard that and said the same for years. Works for business as well
General George S. Patton said that way before Barrow did, and he knew from experience as the best Allied General in Europe during WW 2
both-important components
@@johnerwin9024 Very much so. But without logistics there isn't going to be much tactics.
My uncle is polish and his grandfather used to blow up the railroads during the war
You change my way of understanding the WW2. Great channel man. Congrats
Logistics (specifically fuel) is still the big issue with war. Operation Desert Storm had some interesting issues with fuel. Some of my friends were tankers in DS. In the big Left Hook attack they said that fuel points had been set up in advance of the tanks. CH-53's would fly out low, fill the rubber fuel bladders, leave a couple of fuel guys sitting there in the middle of the desert waiting for the tanks to show up. Fuel trunks could not keep up. A couple of guys I know that were fuellers said they just followed tank tracks across the desert and hoped they would catch up when the tanks ran low or loggered for the night. Mechanized warfare is fuel. WW2 was the first mechanized war so it is unlikely anybody understood the true fuel demands of combat. The great generals were great logicians first and tacticians second.
Great comment.... Thanks !!
That's .... a very luxurious use of fuel. Helicopters aren't known for being efficient.
Leaving a couple of guys ahead of the tank forces in essentially unsecured land?
@@VT-mw2zb Yup. Sketchy. I would assume that the area was clear of Iraqis before the fuel point was placed but I still would not want to be sitting out there in the middle of nowhere with an M-16, a canteen and an MRE.
@@garthflint if the tank were to be the tip of the spear point and that's how they are refueled, wow ... Their aerial recon better be super good.
Another thing is air transportation is very inefficient: fuel comsumption for each ton delivered is a lot worse than just trucks. Trains are the most efficient on land. Most efficient overall is of course, ship. This use of air transportation speaks to the inherent luxurious logistics of the US Army today.
Guess what, that's how the German rolled, too. They used to load Ju-52 with fuel to refuel the leading Panzers. No wonder they kept not having enough fuel.
@@VT-mw2zb The M-1 Abrams is a gas guzzler. Range of about 260 miles on an easy day. Throw in sand and speed and I will bet that range was cut in half. I was on an M-1 for 5 years. Just idling they used fuel in large quantities. 8 - 12 hours of running would empty the fuel tanks. Our operations were controlled by access to fuel and if the fuel trucks could reach us. Again, logistics controlled the battlefield.
Charlex XII and Napoleon must have started rolling in their graves when Barbarossa happened.
They won't. Their plans were just as flawed from a conceptial view. They focused on capturing Moscow and nothing else and it is already established that this won't defeat Russia. Plus their logistics were at the maximal straint and on the edge of breaking all the time.
@@aLpHaGaMeR946 I think I used the wrong idiom here...
But King Charles and Napoleon did not have to deal with the deadly menace of Stalin. Hitler _had to,_ one way or another.
I'm not necessarily agree with that. The way the Nazis structured the economy of the Reich, leave them without choice, I would say from 1937/8. The Nazis exploit the wealth and the industrial base for the rearmament program, so they could leave the squeezed economy in peace, waiting for the collapse of the economy and the collapse of their regime, while their arms chill and rust, or they could start the war with the means they produced and save the regime and exploit the others and fix the mess they initiated in the economy.
@@stef1896 Pretty similar to Japan at the same time, indeed:
We lack ressources and capacities, thus we prepare for war, which costs huge amounts of said ressources and capacities,
thus we are left with no choice but to quickly declare war, under-prepared. ;)
General Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the Wehrmacht, was the most vocal opponent of the Barbarossa plan. He knew better than anyone that from a logistics perspective, Germany was doomed to lose on the Eastern Front..
well, yes - but the problem was Germany was runnng out of gas anyways, it would just take longer...a hopefully fast war in USSR to capture fuel, or go bust fast - or a long slow death.
But, but, 'muh superior wermacht' could win, just that winter and hitler and 'asiatic hordes'.
Joking aside and with everything that we know now, you would not be exagerating by saying that.
This comment is just repeating what TIK said, get the f$%k out of here lol.
@@cookingonthecheapcheap6921 Imbecile you think TIK invented that assessment? Sorry if it's the first time you've heard this view but it is nothing new. Richard Overy and other prominent military historians have said it for years. Only Americans thanks to their poor knowledge of history believe the US and Lend Lease saved the USSR from defeat.
@@anthonycruciani939 Aaaawwwww, didums got upset. I know your not intelligent enough to understand, but copying what the guy says in the comments just makes you like stupid. So you're point is, his point.
And since you insulted me heres mine.
So moron who can't understand what the comment section is for, all that bullshit you typed just to say you think the same way. Your use of imbecile is incorrect aswell, your pathetic use of insults to try and make yourself feel superior is just amusing to me so don't bother. Right after you told me how I think and what knowledge I have. So your ignorant, arrogant, stupid by definition and a "fact parrot" re: someone who has no opinion of their own, so they "parrot" facts in a pathetic attempt to sound intelligent. I'm guessing you're ENTIRE education on the topic is fed by CZcams, I say guess but it's obvious.
I've always been fond of history since highschool. And bc of this, I've led myself into searching through youtube history channels. I must say this is the first time that I've found the best one yet if not the best of all. Keep up the good work, God speed on more informations to share with us
your logistics stuff, especially the oil video, is one of the best out there. exceptional
In a "total war" you have to look at ... everything.
One thing must also be noted. The germans had hoped to capture enough Russian trains/lories but the soviets were able to evacuated alot of them. Thus the reason the germans had to rebuild over 30km of railroad
I have always been facinated by history of military logistics, this has really make all of TIK's work richer and more detailed than most of the histrionic WW2 documentaries I grew up with. Many thanks dude, really enjoy this. As well as the operational details!!!!!!!!
Great, great video. As we move away from the war years, a clearer picture of the conflict will emerge.
I know you've likely got a tremendous backlog, but you should consider looking into the Italian campaign - particularly after it became a 'side-show' in Europe. It gets very little coverage compared to the campaigns in the Pacific or the drive through the Low Countries and over the Rhine but it's got some very interesting peculiarities. Like Market-Garden, it seems ripe for your unique brand of scrutiny and review.
Even the situation on the ground has a unique 'worst of both worlds' quality, going up against motivated and comparatively well-equipped Germans and their Italian ally while also featuring a very hostile environment with disease as icing on a rocky, mountainous cake that would not seem out of place when compared to the likes of Peleliu or Okinawa. Additionally, you have a land chock-a-block with competing bands of partisans and banditti. You have the unique mix of forces - Polish, French colonial, Brazilian, Japanese-American (the famous Nisei), the only segregated infantry division in Europe - the 92nd, Indian units, South African units, the list likely goes on but this is what I've got off the top of my head.
I've spent the last year getting balls-deep into this subject and it is fucking FASCINATING.
If I recall, TIK said he wants his documentaries to follow through North Africa into Italy.
You should make videos about it, seriously.
@@emceha I've been tossing around the idea of getting a channel underway, I just wouldn't want it to be a vehicle for generating cash. I would want it to just be a hobby I do on the side when I can, and I can't right now. One day - when all of my dreams and aspirations fail and I have to make something of myself somehow. :P
Excellent idea. I agree.
I remember reading about the North African campaign, the British Army had Free Polish, Jewish, South African brigades (?). Also, during WWI, I just found out last year after reading about WWI for 50 years that over million Muslims from India, died on the Western Front in the trenches.
@@steviedfromtheflyovercount4739
It is surprising how multinational the Allied armies were in certain theatres of war like North Africa and Italy. Even in N.W. Europe, Polish, Dutch, Belgian and French (plus colonial) troops fought alongside the British, Canadian and US troops. Even the Royal Air Force was more international, with Commonwealth nationals and other foreign nationals in it's ranks. The battle against the Axis was truly a Crusade of Nations, as it has been called.
Great video as always TIK. The importance of logistics has been show in every war ever fought. In Vietnam the NVA and VC deliberately targeted supply convoys to the point that transport GUN trucks were improvised by supply troops to protect supplies.
Always interesting n informative, I find these such an amazing resource, the books n sources etc, even the times when it's somewhat speculation it all seems well thought out, logical n likely. Love the internet for helping me learn about just about anything that interests me and as far as WW2 goes TIK is amazing, particularly on the major battles and things like logistics, numbers, and what was really going on. Thanks for the effort and time, I really appreciate it although I know that's easy to say.
I can listen to this guy all day . Love this channel
Autarky does not mean that you’re ideologically opposed to trade, it means that there must be an economically independent of trade in case of a total war, which Hitler was planning. In the First World War, the blockade caused the total collapse of the German society because the stoppage of trade. Hitler wanted to prevent this from happening again so he made the attempt to make Germany economically independent so that they would not be put into the same situation as last time. It doesn’t mean that they can’t trade with anyone, after all, the German war economy was nearly dependent on Swedish iron ore which they traded with throughout the war. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact also had a major clause about trade and if Autarky was the political ideology of hating trade, then they would not have done that. Good video, but something I noticed.
Except, I don't agree. Hitler didn't persue Autarky for that reason. It was part of it, but it was more fundamental to his ideology than that traditional/out-of-date narrative explains. In fact, I was looking into this earlier today. But I'll get into this in a later video.
TIK Thank you, a further explanation would be great of why you think that.
I will get to it in a future video. All I'll say for now is that he believed in a concept called "shrinking markets". This led him to the conclusion that he had to stop exports. This meant he had to conquer land because once you stop exporting, you can no longer import. This forced him to find food and oil - Lebensraum. The point is, the ideology came first. It just happened to fit the idea of building up for war - but not with the Soviet Union... with the United States, after he'd conquered Russia.
Autarky is a natural and sensible response to the use of trade and military and most importantly monetary blockades that were used against Germany by British and French and other higher monetary forces. Remember the 1919 Royal Navy Blackade starved Germany into much harsher terms for the treaty of Versailes by essentially killing 600,000 people. Autarky is not opposed to trade per se though it may tend to produce that effect as it reduces the need for trade. Furthermore Autarky is economically very viable as it economically fosters alternatives that generally become viable. A case in point was the Prussian Academy under Frederick the great developing the sugar beet. (One reason Germany or rather the German states was the only nation that never had chattel slavery). Another would be the perfection of concrete based roads in Germany. The development of BUNA synthetic rubber by I.G.Farben was another success that exceded the value of natural latex. Coal to oil technology was not competitive at the time but post war it did actually become so due to technologies that the Germans were rolling out in WW2 (fluidised bed reactors, better catalysts). Coal to Oil is nowadays competitive at US40/barrel which is exceeded by oil prices frequently. The problem is that coal to oil is extremely capital intensive and oil producers can and will simply undercut coal to oil producers leaving the investment stranded. Autarky in the form of coal to lquids and gas to liquids might have removed some of the silly wars in the middle east. I wish we had more as it improves global security.
@@TheImperatorKnight "The vampire economy" is worth reading isn't it TIK? Lol
I have long been fascinated by the "trucks" of WW2, which has led me to learn more than the average armchair historian about American Logistics. I find it fascinating: factories quickly set up to unbox jeeps/trucks and assemble them (while giving French workers an income), huge fuel depots to take gasoline pumped across the English Channel loading it in to tanker trucks as well as 5 gallon fuel cans, the Red Ball Express, trucks prepared with spare parts for vehicles, artillery and small arms, shop trucks with the power tools needed to do those repairs, trucks fitted out for eye doctors, trucks fitted out for eyeglasses supply/repair, dental trucks, battalions of former RR men for rebuilding the French RR system, locomotives and rolling stock shipped to France soon after the breakout from Normandy, the wonder of the K & C rations (compared to the rations of other nations), etc. etc. etc.
So I, for one, really appreciate your vids on logistics.
Seems like logistics is what the US truly excelled at in WW2. True, not being bombed helped, but the amount of stuff that was built and shipped around the world blows my mind.
A lot of the US supplies were sourced locally where possible, particularly in the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas where Australia and New Zealand supplied 6 Billion (WW2) US dollars of logistical supplies to US forces.
@@allangibson8494 what resources can you recommend?
The allies were so well supplied the could give some of their sweets to the local kids " got any gum chum"
Really enjoyed that. Very interesting and informative. Keep up the good work!
Wow what a great watch. Detail is excellent
The Wehrmacht was like the Luftwaffe, Eurocentric built for short violent action at an unsustainable level. the war was lost in 1939.
Excellent argument. I agree. I always thought the war for Germany was lost at Stalingrad in 1943, but now I see the war lost in 1939.
@@steviedfromtheflyovercount4739 Stalingrad was the matter of facts. Like a test you fail. Due to circumdtances ages ago
i think I once read in one of Kenneth J. Mackseys books , that the germans basically didn*t capture enough russian locomotives for barbarossa to work out :)
and they had to develop field repair workshops on the fly... prior to barbarossa the panzers were repaired in central workshops in Germany after the campain was done... in late 1941 they actually had to reduce production of new tanks to put out more spare parts for repairs...
Tsarist Russia determined to use a 5ft gauge that was different from the more common 4'8.5" used in most of Europe. This was not due to a deliberate decision to prevent a possible invasion from Europe but it did have that effect. Railway is essential in Russia due to the destruction of roads from permafrost and then melting which creates massive 'waves' in sealed roads and promotes a breakdown of the road. You see it even today on roads with a concrete base. Furthermore unsealed roads quickly turn into mud in the spring meltdown, so called quagmire, its easily over the axles and often over the wheels of standard trucks. I've seen this in Siberia. You can get through it in winter when everything is frozen. IE the ice road trucker solution. The Germans could get through this with their half tracks but their semi-trailers often failed and their 2.5 ton 4WD Opel trucks as well as their Krupp Trucks. The half tracks of course consumed much more fuel but could and were used as tractors to tow the Trucks through. The fuel consumption of the logistics I believe was nearly 10 what had been expected.
Kenneth Macksey... wow there's a name out of the past. I loved those Ballentine books when I was a kid.
Once Russia had recovered from the initial shock of invasion, the railwaymen set about evacuating the motive power before it fell into the hands of the Germans: In total they lost around 2,000 locomotives, many of which were unserviceable, out of a total fleet of 24,200 (1938 data, which excludes that captured in Poland, the Baltics, and Finland. ). At Odessa, a floating dock was filled with track and locomotives driven into it before the dock was towed out to sea, while few of the German’s encirclements contained much rolling stock. The Soviets would lose around 40 percent of their network while losing 15 percent of the motive power, which meant that for the rest of the war they would have an abundance, especially as the wartime economy required less traffic, due to a switch to freight away from passenger traffic. This allowed the simultaneous evacuation of the great cities by millions of Soviet citizens and the war industries’ move to the Urals. However, the key factor in keeping the Soviet Union fighting was its ability to raise new divisions, and this was only possible if the NKPS could gather up the men from the farthest reaches of the Union, deliver them to the depots and then onto the front; at the same time in late 1941, it was transporting the Far Eastern armies to the west. At a time when the German Ostheer was withering away from a lack of replacements, the NKPS was moving millions of men for the Red Army in the other direction, over a network that the Germans were dismissing as old-fashioned and ramshackled.
P. E. Garbutt, _The Russian Railways_ , and H. G. W. Davie, _The Influence of Railways on Military Operations in the Russo-German War 1941-1945_
@@gagamba9198 Stalin was so short of locomotive power and everything else that his Siberian rescuers had to march through the snow for many, many days towards Moscow.
A LOT of the loco stats are total frauds. Stalin PROHIBITED accurate public statistics. Every now and then a statistician didn't get the message. He'd soon be relocated to the GULAG. Stalin prohibited any national census after 1938. What does that tell you? You can't use ANY Soviet statistic. Every last one is a lie. Truth was prohibited.
The US provided about 2,000 full-line locomotives to the USSR -- mostly Baldwins. They were a totally de-bugged design which had been rolling on US & Canadian rails for years. The Soviets loved them so much that they stayed on the rails until the 1960s. A rail tourist discovered where they ended up by accident. During the Yeltsin days, a Westerner could finally take a tourist trip -- up way north -- to nearby the Finnish border. And it was up there our rail buff saw hundreds upon hundreds of retired steam locomotives -- with the Baldwins really catching his eye... him being a real expert on steam locomotion. This ice-yard fleet was there because it would obviously never be nuked. Norway and Finland were right over the border. By the 1990s, everything there was a hunk of rust -- being so close to the Arctic Ocean, too.
Zukov called out these locomotives as an essential ingredient in the Red Army's march West.
Pilots regarded locomotives as sitting ducks. They were easy to pop full of holes -- and you just can't get away with a cheap patch. Once a boiler receives that kind of 'attention' it's RUINED. You need to build another machine. Soviet locomotive losses were horrific. Their exhaust can be seen for miles -- every machine a bullet magnet. Follow the rail lines and hunt for smoke and steam. How easy can it get?
@@davidhimmelsbach557 Much of what you write is mostly correct. True that the USSR fudged the stats for public release, but it also had close-hold need-to-know statistics compiled for and provided to the leadership that were more accurate. Post-Soviet researchers have gained access to these archives.
_'Pilots regarded locomotives as sitting ducks.'_ Yes, especially during the clear day. Less so during inclement weather and at night. Yet, despite years of near continuous day and night bombing by UK and US, Germany still had a running, albeit crippled, rail network at the end of '44 and was refining and delivering petroleum (from Austria and Hungary) via rail in Jan '45. It was Operation Clarion in Feb that finally broke the Reichsbahn's back. The Soviets were able to seize about 2,100 Deutsche Reichsbahn's Class 52 locomotives (Germany's most numerous one) at war's end. Poland and Czechoslovakia also had several hundred.
_'Soviet locomotive losses were horrific.'_ West of the Urals, though the Soviets were able to escape many of their locomotives and rolling stock ahead of the advancing Germans. These were used to transport the factories east. The Committee for Evacuation was formed on 24 June '41 to coordinate the movement of sensitive industries east. About 1.5 million rail cars were used in the endeavour in '41. Of course workers and the supplies for their shelter and sustenance needed to be handed as well.
Very interesting and objective view of history. I enjoy your straightforward logical approach to the subject. Thanks again for the video
Thank you for all your hard work putting these videos together4 us. THANK U......
Even if the frontline armies have stoped, the supply chain army rumbles on. Back and forth.
10:10 This is really interesting. And 25:25. This is explaining more about Barbarossa than anything I've ever heard. Guderian was just like Patton racing across France, the further east he got the more of a logistical problem it created. And the other side of this -- as shown in the American Civil War and the Great War, was that the Soviets were falling back on shortening and still functioning railroads.
I was just wondering about this very topic recently. Have you been reading my mind? Thanks for the video!
A lot of interesting information here, on a topic that I never really thought off before.
It depends on what level the slave labor was used. I remember reading/watching someone recall that the slave laborers working on engines would deliberately sabotage mechanical parts - like not screw internal things (not easily detectable) in properly or assemble things as well as they could, resulting in further breakdowns in the field. I don't remember where I saw this - or whether it was completely anecdotal (i.e. specific to this person's area) or it was indeed going on on a larger scale. It may have been a PoW's memoirs. I don't think there's been substantial research conducted on this subject - of course, if it was indeed going, on the Germans would have had to realize it for records to exist. Then again, I doubt slave labor would have been very enthusiastic about the quality of their work beyond not getting punished - so even if there wasn't deliberate sabotage, it may have resulted in low quality labor.
I served with my fellow logisticians during Desert Shield/Storm and anticipated the "left hook" plan after five seconds of looking at the map of the KTO (Kuwait Theater of Operations). However, I had my doubts about actually supplying a long left hook, given that there was no rail line along the basic east-west axis, parallel to the Saudi-Iraqi border. Gus Pagonis, the "God of Logistics" for KTO, ordered a repeat of the Red Ball Express approach from France 1944 using the lone hard surface road from the Persian Gulf port of Damman/Dharan towards Kuwait City which met the east-west Trans Arabian Pipeline ("Tapline") Road that ran from the Persian Gulf to Jordan. That road had a never-ending stream of cargo trucks, fuel tankers, flatbed trailers with AFV's, civilian contractor vehicles of all sorts, plus the existing civilian vehicles. The local civilians were accustomed to driving those remote, desert roads at high speeds with very little traffic, resulting in likely hundreds of deaths from collisions with military traffic. In retrospect, the thousands of miles I logged in the right seat of a HMMWV on the Tapline Road were easily the most dangerous peril I faced during Desert Storm.
One Logistics Task Force (LTF) maintained a Forward Air Refueling Point (FARP) along the Tapline Road west of the Wadi Al Batin which helped the 101st Air Assault Division relocate its hundreds of rotary wing aircraft far to the west for the widest reach of the left hook. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pagonis
Thanks for your service Sam
Sadly logistics are so overlooked....Guilty.....yet soooo important........you make an excellent point......
Having visited Morocco in my late teens I can see how the many deaths of local civilians on that road would have been inevitable. I was on a bus tour of the major cities in Morocco and local drivers would pass us doing some extremely high speeds on these gravel/paved roads.
I was pretty young during that operation and started to research it over the last year or so. Now that the conflict had happens so long ago there is some remarkable information released since that time that I find very fascinating. As with all things in life, the situation was not so black and white but many shades of grey.
Do you think that there was anything that the logistical support units could have done differently to avoid such loss of civilian life in retrospect? Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but I'd be interested in your perspective.
@@antonioarroyas7662 Much of the problem was the completely different mindsets of the predominantly, Western, Allied soldiers versus the local residents of rural and coastal Saudi Arabia. We Americans, Brits, French, Czechs, Italians, and so on thought the road was very crowded with wide loads moving fairly slowly and there was little choice but to maintain a safe distance and go with the flow. The locals simply passed fearlessly any time there was even a minor gap in traffic coming in the opposite direction. The desert road was built like a desert railroad, on an embankment roughly two meters higher than the desert floor and with hardly any shoulder space. When a 19 year old American driver of a 5-ton cargo truck faced a choice between colliding with a Chevy Impala or rolling over as he swerved to avoid it, the Impala and likely five or more local nationals met that giant steel bumper head-on.
In retrospect, perhaps we could have set up a bus service and banned all non-cargo civilian traffic. I doubt that would have been popular with the Saudi government or people, so everyone just kept waiting for the local nationals to adapt to the "facts on the ground."
@@amerigo88
Preach on Sam Preach on
The Coalition forces of Desert Storm were consuming so much fuel during August 1990 - March 1991 that Saudi Arabia was forced to import refined fuels! Meanwhile, the local nationals were still using subsidized gasoline (petrol) in their gas guzzling cars that in current money cost 0.40 GBP per liter or $2 USD per gallon. When our water drilling company drilled for water the first time along the Saudi-Iraq border, they hit oil instead. The second time they drilled, they hit water and pumped it for two weeks. After that, the water ran out and oil started coming out instead. I noticed there were zero oil pumps that I saw in Saudi Arabia, meaning the oil was so plentiful, it didn't have to be pumped out of the ground, it pushed itself out.
On the other hand, wood was so scarce that the local nationals were always eager to take any sort of wood we disposed of, such as cargo pallets.
I love the perspective you give on the campaigns of the Second World War TIK. Always excited for a new video :)
I never ever listen to historical WW2 lectures more than once....but I had to watch this one twice it was so good and so interesting and informative....Mind officially blown and years of thinking of why not Moscow answered.......really really great talker....thank Christ for the microphone as it makes for a more richer context....... bravo......
A great analysis based on logistics.
Also, years ago I read that General Marshall could have supplied flak jackets to the US infantry fighting at D-day, and onward, because he stated in order to have enough fuel for that front, they couldn't ship flak jackets.
Next, could you do a video on the breakout at at St. Lo and how the logistics shortage collapsed the attack by Patton and Montgomery, legthening the war.
Excellent overview, as usual, but I can't hold myself from (possibly) correcting - Germany did not really "convert" the railways, they simply needed something like "pit-stop" booth in the F1 races (you can actually see and experience the thing if you travel by train from Russia to any European country) - a train reaches such station, it's split into individual wagons, they are lifted into the air by ultra-powerful huge jacks, old wheel pairs are rolled away (they are disconnected from the carriages before they are lifted, of course) and newer ones are rolled in. Then the jacks put the carriages down, the railroad workers attach the pairs and the train rolls on. This operation can be done in parallel so not that much time (1-2hrs or so) is lost.
Actually, as far as I remember from von Bocks memoirs, it was not just technical difficulties and whole unpreparedness of German railway industry as a whole, but also some 'political' stuff as well, Feodor complained to Halder (or even Hitler himself) that the locomotives that still worked were diverted to something related to the Endlosung der Judenfrage in Poland instead of getting used for actual military logistics purposes. He predicted that Typhoon will fail because of that, and it surely did, with von Bock getting booted shortly afterwards.
SO GOOD TIK! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Absolutely Brill very interesting indeed more more more...
Really love listening you have a great way of explaining topics 👍.
Taking Lenningrad rather than Moscow in late 1941 could have solved many logistical problems for the Northen Army Group by allowing the use of merchant ships in the Baltic. That would ease the requirements on railways in the north so they could be used in other areas. I try to do this when replaying the Eastern Front campaign.
You mean merchant ships running on oil ?
@@helicongremory8480 older merchant ships could be running on coal.
@@SLAPPEDbyAhat it is easier to supply via sea esspecially if you control one than on land...
JoJeck
Good point. However having the logistical punch to effect a rapid capture of Leningrad was the issue.
Hitler stopped Army Group North outside the city for a reason.
@@helicongremory8480 The cargo ships of the period were ALL coal burners.
Just my 2 cents, Germany must have been taken some measurable hits to their supplies because they devoted lots of valuable manpower to hunting down and preventing saboteurs. This was especially true in the later years of the war.
I read 10% of German field units in the rear looking for Partisans. Also, Stalin actively supported and supplied Partisans in the rear areas behind German lines.
it was only a real problem for army group centre, north and south had little partisan activaty against them but army group centre on the other hand had massive
Excellent insight Tik
Great channel, very interesting stuff here!
"in terms of logistics, we have no logistics"
You look great ! I think your decision to do Courland once every two weeks is good for you.
Now that's surprising because I've had a very stressful week! I had to spend 3 days at a coffee shop doing work (on paper, which isn't as efficient) while noisey workers replaced our boiler. Because of this I haven't been able to do any editing at all this week, which means I'm going to have to put in a ton of hours this week to get next week's Courland video done in time. Been worried about it, so not been sleeping right, so a little surprised you think I look better this video.
@@TheImperatorKnight I still think you look better. And more confident.
Well, thank you Serafim :)
I've noticed that too! Thought maybe he was using some new camera filter or smth =) Anyway he's looking better, it's true
Logistics are so often overlooked and vital to a real understanding of wrafrew in general, the eastern front , the western desert . Absolutely vital to understand what was going on. Love to see more on this!
TIK, you provide very compelling references. At one time I labored under the impression that I had a good understanding of WW2. I'll assert that I know more than almost all my aquanttences about History in general and WW2 in specific. However, I've learned so much from following your channel that the knowledge I do have seems much more meager then I once believed.
“The amateurs discuss tactics: the professionals discuss logistics.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
And werhaboos discuss armor thickness and penetration.
Starting with the Two World Wars this century, warfare now is conducted by the entire "nation" not just the army. One has to consider the strength of nation not just in army size but how much industrial capacity it has (and latent potential to expand) and economic strategic resources...ie oil, mineral deposits and food production. If you consider Germany as a whole n not just focus on the armed forces it never stood a chance. It flattered to deceive with short wars in the west won essentially in the opening of the campaigns. As soon as Germany was drawn into a long war of production and protection of vital resources, it never stood a chance. The USA or Soviet Union would have defeated Germany on their own. Both together with the British Empire thrown in too and its a miracle Germany stayed in the fight till May 45.
Hi. Very good video. Thank you.
Another excellent video.
Good episode. Your attention to economics and the integration of that into your analysis is why I don't mind "Cheating" on you with Stalingrad by watching the videos on the "Army University Press". They cover a lot of the tactics, explained in terms of present day military doctrine, but do not address the economics at all.
As for sabotage, I did read once that during the Blitz, when civilians hear a "dud" hit, they would say that it was Czech bomb.
Whilst A.U.P docs are interesting the female computer voice is so annoying it makes it impossible to listen to them .!
Were we're going, we need roads.
Cue the back to the future theme
Well-done video, keep on going.
Your point is very well taken and seems to be greatly under appreciated. Thank you!
I’d love to hear more about the cities at the time. I’ve heard Kiev was the capital of the Ukraine SSR but that Kharkiv was actually the main city of production for example. Or that Leningrad contributed 10% or so of the entire Soviet production (not sure if that continued post siege).
One thing that may highlight the difference between the way the Western Allies and Germany approached Logistics is to paraphrase something a Military Historian noted in a lecture I listened to some while ago. This is not the exact wording, I cannot remember which lecture it was, but it went like this:
Within the German Army the Logistics Officer of a Staff was relatively junior, the general attitude was to draw up Operational planning, then inform the LO 'Make this happen'. Be that at Divisional, Corps or Army level.
With the Western Allies the LO was fairly senior, the general attitude for a British or American COmmander drawing up Operational Plans was to turn to his LO and ask CAN we make this happen?
It is a small, but very important difference, even if Germany had access to adequate logistics assets, especially motor transport, I do find myself wondering if they could have used those assets as fully and as well as the British and especially the Americans....
EDIT: As an aside, considering the bulldozer/excavator question, when I considered that I came to the conclusion that the best place to at least start looking for those kinds of answers is to have a look at Army/Army group organisation information, and narrowing down on the Engineer/Pioneer units, road/rail construction units tend to be highly specialised so would be attached at at least Army level, and possibly higher, at Army Group or even Theatre... Basically looking for German equivilants of Seabees for example.... Thats where those kind of vehicles would *definitely* be found in inventory... Then work down from there.
This is the difference, the organization of supply, the accumulation and distribution of reserves, was handled by the second person in the country, Beria, and in the case of Stalingrad, he personally controlled the logistics .
awesome stuff, thanks Tik.
This is very good.. Keep it up.
11:55 It was because the Soviets used diesel and the Germans used gasoline.
"Clearly, logistics is the hard part of fighting a war."
- Lt. Gen. E. T. Cook, USMC, November 1990
"Gentlemen, the officer who doesn't know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless."
- Gen. George S. Patton, USA
"Bitter experience in war has taught the maxim that the art of war is the art of the logistically feasible."
- ADM Hyman Rickover, USN
"Forget logistics, you lose."
- Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm
Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."
- Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980
"I am tempted to make a slightly exaggerated statement: that logistics is all of war-making, except shooting the guns, releasing the bombs, and firing the torpedoes."
- ADM Lynde D. McCormick, USN
"Because of my wartime experience, I am insistent on the point that logistics know-how must be maintained, that logistic is second to nothing in importance in warfare, that logistic training must be widespread and thorough..."
- VADM Robert B. Carney, USN
"Logistic considerations belong not only in the highest echelons of military planning during the process of preparation for war and for specific wartime operations, but may well become the controlling element with relation to timing and successful operation."
- VADM Oscar C. Badger, USN
"… in its relationship to strategy, logistics assumes the character of a dynamic force, without which the strategic conception is simply a paper plan."
- CDR C. Theo Vogelsang, USN
"Logistics is the stuff that if you don't have enough of, the war will not be won as soon as."
- General Nathaniel Green, Quartermaster, American Revolutionary Army
"Strategy and tactics provide the scheme for the conduct of military operations, logistics the means therefore."
- Lt. Col. George C. Thorpe, USMC
"Only a commander who understand logistics can push the military machine to the limits without risking total breakdown."
- Maj.Gen. Julian Thompson, Royal Marines
"There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war."
- Carl von Clausevitz
"In modern time it is a poorly qualified strategist or naval commander who is not equipped by training and experience to evaluate logistic factors or to superintend logistic operations."
- Duncan S. Ballantine, 1947
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…"
- Sun Tzu
"Logistics sets the campaign's operational limits."
- Joint Pub 1: Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States
"My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander
"Armies march on its stomach" -Napoleon and Fredrick the Great.
The importance of logistics was well known to the Germans too, but they thought that they could deny the limits of logistics with ideology and the application of sheer willpower.
Well they expected the Soviets to fall within few weeks or months so they felt with willpower they could hold on for the short time needed for victory just as it happened in France and Poland
In Robert Graves ,memoir Goodby to all that, the only book you need to read about ww1 he metions that the 5 British cavalry divisions needed 25 infantry divisions worth of trains for logistics. Horses need a lot of support. I once read that a horse has a maximum logistical range of 36 hrs diminishing returns
Very interesting. I've read books that touched upon all of this but the detail is better still.
Will you ever cover the Pacific War? Would be interesting to hear about the Burma Campaign or maybe even about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, don't see many people talk about those theaters. Cheers!
TIKs videos are incredibly in depth and well researched, as you should have noticed. Such research takes a lot of time, and a lot of money to buy all the books that are needed to get the full picture of a specific theme. So, he has said that he does not plan to make less in depth videos about everything, he will focus on his main areas of interrest, the land war in Europe and North Africa.
I remember him mentioning that in an older video. He basically hasn't covered the Pacific theatre because he wanted to specialize in one area, rather than being a historian that covers all of it in lesser detail.
He may cover it in the future, but who knows when.
Your assessment for France is only applicable for the first part of the Battle of France. The situation was much more different for the Second (actual) Battle of France see Case Red: The Collapse of France by Robert Forczyk for a good description of what happened.
Very nicely done :)
Excellent analysis ...... Hope to see more>> keep going
Germany's Logisticians stated very clearly where and when and why the offensive would stall. The opening question about corduroy roads in the south during the Civil War isn't the same, those roads didn't have motor vehicles rolling over them.
wessd log roads hold up to motor vehicles well though
But as TIK pointed out many of the infantry divisions were supplied by rail and horse. Much like in the civil war. Its not a problem that Corduroy roads can't take motor vehicles if you don't have any motor vehicles.
Ieuan Hunt yeah that is true tho but the roads still help with the speed of your convoys though
I would suspect also that the steppe isn't as heavily wooded as the deep south in the US.
You talk about logistics for almost a hour, while all is so simple to summorize: The German command never expected to wage a war longer then 2 a 3 months. The logistics nighmare started way before they evens started their campaign. When you are not prepared well enough, did not include every possible variant, undervalued the strenght of your opponent, bad things are going to happen. German HQ was very scared to wage a longlasting war with russia, rightfully so. While they already knew they lacked the resources to do so. And history tells us that is exactly what happened.
soi, thanky you for this "open door" ;)
There were many interesting details, not just "they failed logistics"
Thank you!
Thanks, and as always GREAT Video.
Awesome stuff Tik
15:36 Of course not: In Germany you use coal. In Soviet Russia, coal uses YOU!
Just to clarify, Poland never surrender like France but thier government and army (as much as possible) escaped the country. And it wasn't speedy, but was forced by Soviet invasion which has taken all military infrastructure evacuated from the west. It is fact that Germans have had almost no amunition and fuel at the end of September. Another interesting observation is that some of our right wing partisans who escaped Red Army to the west at the end of the war has been absolutely stunned by the level of mechanisation and abundance of equipment in USArmy.
Hi TIK!!! Just became a Patreon for the first time. Really impressed by high quality of content and your amazing ability to pass your message in crisp and clear manner. Looking forward for more videos as I watched them all at this point.
P.S
Huge history fan so your detailed analysis coming from a western person shed a lot of light on the differences in perseption between Russian/Soviet historians and the western world. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
Hey Tik, Another great video-Thanks. You filled in a few gaps in my knowledge base. As the Great Chieftain(Nicholas Moran)says "Amateurs talk tactics,Professionals talk Logistics"
So a Guderian dash to Moscow August September 1941 would have been a grand scale version of Rommels dash to the wire?
Most likely, yes, if the Stalin refused to surrender or to negotiate and and the USSR didn't collapse..
Its weird for anyone to demand you stick to military history when the vast majority of your videos are about how events happened during war.
Context is important to why the events happened.
They're not here for the history, they're here for their ideology. Most of my regular viewers understand that the non-military stuff is as important as the military stuff, as the responses to my "Stick to Tanks" video show czcams.com/video/FgyYkLqEyh8/video.html
Yeah the more I see the context the more I understand things better.
Logistics is military history. Excellent video. Keep it up, your crushing it!!!!
Looking at the Italian Alpine troops on the eastern front, they had to walk about 700 km to get to the front lines and had to use their mules for transportation of materials while there. They are a good example of the infantry units on the eastern front.
In war....
Amateurs talk tactics...
Professionals talk logistics...
Are you a professional?
@@newdrug1880 Regardless if he is, it doesn't make his statement any less true
And fanbois talk armor thickness and penetration.
i like the explanation that history /discovery channel gives for the failures in ww2 ... its hitlers fault
Important point well articulated
good explaination
Germany got Iron ore from Sweden and Oil from Hungry and Romania. How did they not trade*
? Or dit they got all that stuff for free? Not mentioning the stuff they got from USSR...
You can always trade with gold. But they collect the foreign currency as well: in the time of the Reich, you could/need to go to some state officer and get some foreign currency in order to travel. Of course, you needed a very good reason for traveling.
I think they gave iron to Romania for exchange but they usually failed to give it all or in time I think so, i don't know about Hungary and Sweden though
@@alexandrosg.1172 Indeed. They gave machinery too. They swapped goods for goods.
@@alexandrosg.1172 They sent coal here to Sweden in exchange for the iron ore.
@@AAA9734 thanks for telling
Geography is everything. Or at least part of your nightmare.
Niklas K. Geography explains everything. And everything starts with geography. Geography explains the past, present and can predict the future. But I’m a geography/GIS major-so I’m biased.
I love ALL your videos
Fascinating insight, backed up with hard data logistical and engineering considerations.
IMPORTANT HISTORICAL QUESTION: Is that a Gibson SG in the background?
Yes, Gibson SG Special, purchased in Texas
You should grow a beard, like Bernard over at military history visualized.
It's funny because I've been told by my friends IRL to shave it all off.
@@TheImperatorKnight keep it off. MHV looks like a bum. He's not old enough like David Willey from the Tank Museum to make it look good.
@@TheImperatorKnight
Well we are an eclectic community here so expect unusual advice.
I vote for the beard!
Predictable answer by me who sports a full Kaiser Franz Joseph mustash and sideburns irl.
And buy an armchair...
@@TheImperatorKnight Only listen to your wife/gf when it comes to shaving or not shaving the beard. As she will be the one to interact with it.
Great vid cheers :)
The best talk I've ever heard about ww2