- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
German Mountain Troops Ambushing Russians
Winter 1943: German mountain troops in Caucasus ambushing passing Russian soldiers. Fragment of a propaganda film.
Liveleak requires flash. If you see this message, make sure you have the latest flash player installed. To install the latest version, click HERE
Added: Jun 27 2009 In: education
By: Kbdroll 
- Tags:
- war,
- dogfight,
- world,
- war,
- 2,
- american,
- jets,
- gun,
- camera,
- raw,
- footage,
- army,
- dead,
- killed,
- navy,
- america,
- warships,
- fleet,
- under,
- attack,
- bullet,
- tank,
- crew,
- burns,
- alive
- Views: 57597 |
- Votes: 16 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 93
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
The Germans killed so many Russians, it's insane. The Eastern Front was a bloody meat grinder. The Germans used superior tactics, had superior technology, better-trained troops etc... but the Soviets just kept coming wave after wave. About 3 or 4 Soviet troops were killed for every 1 German killed on the Eastern Front.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
ww2 was a west vs east affair, not the dday.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Claudio-B" (R)
ps: not just dday pardon me.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Claudio-B" (R)
an excellent clip Kbd', really good stuff! voted and saved.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "thecleaner001" Premium
WW2 was a lot of things. It was the Eastern Front, North Africa, Italy, France, the Battle of Britain, and don't forget the entire Pacific War against Japan where the US and Brits fought a second war altogether not to mention the entire naval war. The US and UK were all over the world fighting multiple countries and fronts. We have great respect for the USSR on the Eastern Front and their enormous contribution, but you can't minimize the war to the Eastern Front. A lot of modern Europeans try to oversimplify WW2 as just USSR vs Germany. It was called a WORLD war for a reason and the English speaking world played an enormous role and on many fronts. Our contribution was far greater than D-Day. That was just a major milestone based on a really big gamble that paid off great dividends.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Trenz" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Bardamu" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
WW2 was a lot of things. It was the Eastern Front, North Africa, Italy, France, the Battle of Britain, and don't forget the entire Pacific War against Japan where the US and Brits fought a second war altogether not to mention the entire naval war. The US and UK were all over the world fighting multiple countries and fronts. We have great respect for the USSR on the Eastern Front and their enormous contribution, but you can't minimize the war to the Eastern Front. A lot of modern Europeans try to oversimplify WW2 as just USSR vs Germany. It was called a WORLD war for a reason and the English speaking world played an enormous role and on many fronts. Our contribution was far greater than D-Day. That was just a major milestone based on a really big gamble that paid off great dividends.
Thx for the info, and i know my share on the topic.
One detail I don't agree with is... "modern europeans try to oversimplify ww2 as just USSR vs Germany"
Given that I don't like generalizations like "europe says that" statements, saying that ww2 was MAJORLY Ussr vs Germany is true as maths.
That doesn't mean there was no western front, but history teaching has been oversimplified in europe by years of NATO propaganda for political control reasons, not historical reasons... USSR was a far away deal, USA won ww2 and liberated europe!
Reality speaking: USA liberated france, belgium and holland . They bombed the rest of other countries untill they fell to their knees.
Then came the USSR that took almost half of the european continent.
So, after the cold war europeans can look at the truth straight in the eyes.
I don't see anything bad with it... and stuff like dday or the bulge won't loose their value.
War against nazi germany was fought MAINLY with english speaking capitals , founding , bombings and MAINLY with russian infantry (see "guys with a gun", the "meat")
Both of these "ingredients" were vital.
Again , that doesn't mean no american/english/canadian soldier died or suffered, but history studies over such great events require a somewhat cynical attitude ( we're talking about numbers, bad part is they're related to real lives).
So yes, in about 100 years history will be taught more aseptically and the vulgata will be that the war against germany was won by Stalin with GREAT economic help by western allies and smaller scale, more specific operations on the field.
Again, I don't want to be disrespectful to any part that took casualties. But still, compared to the western front, the eastern one was huge, terribly rough, a war between ethnicities, not troops, and numbers just say that. Dealing with Russia was Hitler's main plan.
In Stalingrad EVERY SINGLE DAY was like DDAY. Can you imagine that?
So the main thing in europe was nazism vs communism and central europe vs slavic world. It started and ended like that.
The whole "nazism" case was financed as a buffer state against communism, for ex.
A buffer state that revolted to its creditors. And it had to be erased.
With that I don't mean I rejoice in saying Stalin won the war, but wars in real world are not bad guys vs good guys, and this was a fine example.
Take care bud.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Claudio-B" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
Don't play the part of an ugly american metapotent. Just because you don't like russians doesn't mean that you should write nonsense. Hollywood movies like "enemy at the gates" isn't a substitute for real historical knowledge.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Arnoux" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
This is my source for the casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
Look, as the poster above pointed out, you clearly very biased. How can you make a good tank if you have "terrible technology"? Soviets didn't use "maneuver warfare"? LOL what's that supposed to mean? They just sent whatever they had straight at the enemy? Soviets demonstrated their ability at tank warfare as early as 1939 in their war against Japan in Manchuria when Zhokov's forced had encircled and wiped out an entire Japanese army. The Japanese never messed with the Russians again after that.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Bardamu" (R)
WW2 was a lot of things. It was the Eastern Front, North Africa, Italy, France, the Battle of Britain, and don't forget the entire Pacific War against Japan where the US and Brits fought a second war altogether not to mention the entire naval war. The US and UK were all over the world fighting multiple countries and fronts. We have great respect for the USSR on the Eastern Front and their enormous contribution, but you can't minimize the war to the Eastern Front. A lot of modern Europeans try to oversimplify WW2 as just USSR vs Germany. It was called a WORLD war for a reason and the English speaking world played an enormous role and on many fronts. Our contribution was far greater than D-Day. That was just a major milestone based on a really big gamble that paid off great dividends.
Thx for the info, and i know my share on the topic.
One detail I don't agree with is... "modern europeans try to oversimplify ww2 as just USSR vs Germany"
Given that I don't like generalizations like "europe says that" statements, saying that ww2 was MAJORLY Ussr vs Germany is true as maths.
That doesn't mean there was no western front, but history teaching has been oversimplified in europe by years of NATO propaganda for political control reasons, not historical reasons... USSR was a far away deal, USA won ww2 and liberated europe!
Reality speaking: USA liberated france, belgium and holland . They bombed the rest of other countries untill they fell to their knees.
Then came the USSR that took almost half of the european continent.
So, after the cold war europeans can look at the truth straight in the eyes.
I don't see anything bad with it... and stuff like dday or the bulge won't loose their value.
War against nazi germany was fought MAINLY with english speaking capitals , founding , bombings and MAINLY with russian infantry (see "guys with a gun", the "meat")
Both of these "ingredients" were vital.
Again , that doesn't mean no american/english/canadian soldier died or suffered, but history studies over such great events require a somewhat cynical attitude ( we're talking about numbers, bad part is they're related to real lives).
So yes, in about 100 years history will be taught more aseptically and the vulgata will be that the war against germany was won by Stalin with GREAT economic help by western allies and smaller scale, more specific operations on the field.
Again, I don't want to be disrespectful to any part that took casualties. But still, compared to the western front, the eastern one was huge, terribly rough, a war between ethnicities, not troops, and numbers just say that. Dealing with Russia was Hitler's main plan.
In Stalingrad EVERY SINGLE DAY was like DDAY. Can you imagine that?
So the main thing in europe was nazism vs communism and central europe vs slavic world. It started and ended like that.
The whole "nazism" case was financed as a buffer state against communism, for ex.
A buffer state that revolted to its creditors. And it had to be erased.
With that I don't mean I rejoice in saying Stalin won the war, but wars in real world are not bad guys vs good guys, and this was a fine example.
Take care bud.
I don't disagree with much of what you said. I don't like generalizations myself. However, my impression of your first statement was that you were generalizing and minimized DDay to nothing.
In the US, I never felt that WW2 was something portrayed as the US coming in and winning the war. However, it just seems that many Europeans feel the need to state that the USSR was the major contributor and the west was really nothing, and not vice versa. I am simply saying it was a group effort and the Pacific War is sometimes forgotten outside the US and Asia.... as well as the Air war as you stated.
Growing up here we were mostly taught it was Allies vs Axis. I think one of the perceptions is that Americans think they solely won the war is from Hollywood movies that are lopsided on the American experience. I suppose that is just because Hollywood is in America and it is logical that we would make movies about our perspective; not that we think that is the only perspective.
I am taking some liberties on what I think drove people's perceptions (and your own) but if the impression is out there that American's think we won the war single-handedly; we don't (although there are always a few). I think knowing what the USSR was capable of is what made the cold war what it was from our perspective. Anyways, just some thoughts on the subject since I have heard similar comments from the European continent mostly on LL. Take care.
Again, I don't know exactly your perspective but am guessing about European generalizations on the subject. My British aunt always said she hated that American's thought John Wayne won the war;-)
Most American's think John Wayne movies are old Hollywood and are kind of silly representations of war.
Posted Jun-27-2009 by "Trenz" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
Don't play the part of an ugly american metapotent. Just because you don't like russians doesn't mean that you should write nonsense. Hollywood movies like "enemy at the gates" isn't a substitute for real historical knowledge.
I simply mentioned facts. What you are doing is writing nonsense.
It is a historical fact that the Russian generals didn't care about casualties, they KNEW that the Germans had far superior technology, training, and tactics... so they made up for it by overwhelming the Germans with numbers and using attrition to wear them down.
Posted Jun-28-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
This is my source for the casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
Look, as the poster above pointed out, you clearly very biased. How can you make a good tank if you have "terrible technology"? Soviets didn't use "maneuver warfare"? LOL what's that supposed to mean? They just sent whatever they had straight at the enemy? Soviets demonstrated their ability at tank warfare as early as 1939 in their war against Japan in Manchuria when Zhokov's forced had encircled and wiped out an entire Japanese army. The Japanese never messed with the Russians again after that.
According to wikipedia:
"Military losses of 10.7 million include 7.7 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead (out of 5.2 million total POWs), plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses."
Posted Jun-28-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
Seems like a gross oversimplification to me. T34 is usually considered to be the best tank of WWII. As far as tactics go, the Soviets performed very impressively at Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk just to name a few major engagements. 6,600,000 soviet troops were killed in action compared to 4,000,000 germans who were killed on the eastern front.
10 MILLION Soviet troops were killed in the Eastern Front, compared to about 3 million Germans.
The main method of fighting for the Soviets was wave tactics. They did not employ the same kind of maneuver warfare that most everyone else used. Although the T34 was a good tank, the Soviets had terrible technology for most of the war, a feckless airforce, very poorly trained conscripts... some of whom weren't even equipped with a rifle per person. Before the US started giving the Soviets incredible amounts of aid including 300,000 trucks, they lacked the means to logistically operate in the war. The Soviets wouldn't have even been able to fight outside of their borders without using Lend-Lease aid from the US.
This is my source for the casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties
Look, as the poster above pointed out, you clearly very biased. How can you make a good tank if you have "terrible technology"? Soviets didn't use "maneuver warfare"? LOL what's that supposed to mean? They just sent whatever they had straight at the enemy? Soviets demonstrated their ability at tank warfare as early as 1939 in their war against Japan in Manchuria when Zhokov's forced had encircled and wiped out an entire Japanese army. The Japanese never messed with the Russians again after that.
YOU are clearly biased. It is a very commonly known fact that the Soviets were seriously lacking in technological prowess. They received massive amounts of aid from the US, not just material but vehicles, planes, ships, engines... all sorts of things that the Soviets did not have the ability to produce for themselves. And what the Soviets needed the most was the hundreds of thousands of high-quality trucks the US gave them to ship all of their troops and equipment. Logistically, the Soviets were feckless, they had a lot of trouble keeping their troops supplied.
I suggest you read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Life-Saver-Lend-Lease-U-S-S-R-World/dp/0739107364
The Soviets received ENORMOUS amounts of aid from the US.
Aircraft: 14,795
Tanks: 7,056
Jeeps: 51,503
Trucks: 375,883
Motorcycles: 35,170
Tractors: 8,071
Guns: 8,218
Machine guns: 131,633
Explosives: 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued: $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars: 11,155
Locomotives: 1,981
Cargo ships: 90
Submarine hunters: 105
Torpedo boats: 197
Ship engines: 7,784
Food supplies: 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment: $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals: 802,000 tons
Petroleum products: 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals: 842,000 tons
Cotton: 106,893,000 tons
Leather: 49,860 tons
Tires: 3,786,000
Army boots: 15,417,001 pairs
Posted Jun-28-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
No wonder the Germans lost.....the were all off skiing somewhere.
Posted Jun-28-2009 by "too_much_noise" (R)