Frankly a very controversial review. Enemy at the Gates is notorious for being one of the most inaccurate films about WW2. River crossings were done at night time for reasons that are all too obvious. The 13th Guards division discussed here participated in a defensive operation, not a human wave. The one rifle 2 men is an idiotic myth this movie started. The list goes on.

Apparently the Stuka siren was so terrifying that it's become a trope of any diving airplane regardless of its actual engine type.

Are we not going to mention how they’re crossing the Volga in broad daylight? It’s well known that night crossings were how they got over, going by day was suicide

My grandfather was part of operation Uranus (the soviets that sieged the Germans and took the 6th army). He said when they entered people were eating rats and worse dead bodies. He was shot six times through the stomach they wrote a newspaper article about him in the Western Times after he moved to Wales.

I find the lack of bayonets in this movie to be extremely disturbing.

A lot of things bother me about this movie. But two of the big ones are: Depictin Vasily Zaitcev as an illiterate farmhand. As pointed out, Zaitcev had served in the navy for years before going to Stalingrad. But one of his jobs there was to be an accountant. He was fully literate and well educated. Depicting him as a naive, bumbling simpleton does him a great disservice. My second gripe (in addition to all the stuff other commenters have pointed out) is the female sniper, Ludmilla, who loses her nerve in one scene, panics, and is killed because of her own incompetence. This character is apparently inspired by ludmila Pavlichenko. The real Pavlichenko was a top soviet sniper, with over 300vconfirmed kills. She was so feared that the Germans sent out special units to try and hunt her down. She was especially known for her steely resolve. She survived the war, went on a tour of the US, and became friends with Mrs Rooseveldt. One thing that always bothers me about movies like this is the fact they rely on telling myths about ruthless soviet strategy to make the russian forces look crueler. And they don't have to. The soviet union did terrible things to large sections of it's population. You don't have to resort to "blocking batallions" to convince people of that. You can just be accurate.

If you're going to blur stuff out, why show it at all?

I strongly dispute the assertion that Stalingrad had "no particular military or strategic value" (19:37). It was crucially located between the bends of two of the most important rivers in Russia (the Don and the Volga) and was by far the largest city in the area. If the Germans effectively controlled Stalingrad there would have been little to stop them from cutting off communications to the Caucasus, and if properly manned and fortified it could have formed the lynchpin of a near impregnable defensive line. Some pundits postulate that if the Germans had focused all their attacking armies on first surrounding Stalingrad, then quickly securing it once it was unable to receive reinforcements (thus avoiding months of urban warfare), and only THEN turning south to the Caucasus, the campaign could have ended very differently. Obviously that's a lot of if's, but the point is that Stalingrad had a LOT of military value, maybe more so than any other Soviet city besides Moscow or Leningrad, precisely because its geography made it such a difficult city to capture.

Only 0.1% of retreating troops were fired on by NKVD blocking detachments (and most of that was overhead) 90% were reorganized. 9% were penalized. 1% were executed. (4 yr span)

A better movie about Stalingrad is the German 1993 movie Stalingrad. A lot less "Hollywood 'History' " in that one. Definitely no ridiculous sending Guard units into battle without weapons in that one.

3:00 rifle shortages in 1942? No, this wasn't the case, this scene is totally unrealistic.

19:40: I don't agree with the idea that the battle was only a "battle of dictators" and that Stalingrad "had no particular military or strategic value". PLease note that: 1- There were heavy industrial facilities in Stalingrad as the "tractors factory", converted to the production of T34 tanks, the arms factory "Barricade" as well as the metallurgical complex "Red October". 2- The Volga river was a very important transportation route from Central Asia allowing oil supply from Baku. 3- Stalingrad was also a railway hub: all high tonnage railway lines from Caucasus to the rest of the country were going through Stalingrad and this was paramount to get reinforcement from Moscow and Siberia. It was an important part of the Soviet military organisation. 4- Last but not least, the famous Soviet spy Richard Sorge had informed Moscow that Japan might attack the USSR as soon as any city on the Volga would have been taken, which would result in stopping allied supply from Iran routes.

I disagree with him when he said Stalingrad had no military or strategic value. It was a major trade, supply and transportation hub and a large industrial town and was a major producer of armored vehicles. It was also very strategically located. He makes it sound like the Germans initiated that entire campaign solely to conquer Stalingrad for no other reason than its name and that it was the be all and end all of the campaign. In fact, the German operational plans do not focus on Stalingrad. The focus of the campaign was the oil producing regions of the Caucuses. Stalingrad was originally to be an anchor or ‘roof’ to cover the northern shoulder of the advance. Taking it would also deprive the Soviets of all its benefits. The fact that it bore Stalin’s name became more important as the fight for it went on and developed into the grinding slugfest that it did, but it had little to do with why the Germans wanted it to begin with.

Never knew Michael Bolton knew so much about WW2!

First scene, only twice was the Russians forced to cross the Volga in daylight.

one of the most interesting artistic choices I think in the film is removing EVERYONE else, it's just about this relationship and this battle between two men. beautiful

A deep dive on Stalingrad 1993 would be great, one of the most bleak war movies ever made

Stalingrad was also a key railhub

Dan, my father fought through the Pacific Theatre - a Corporal by Guadalcanal, he’d enlisted early and his war ended at Okinawa. I’m not certain what happened to him on Saipan, but it changed him forever, and he had several landings to make after that. I asked him how he had the courage to leave the landing boats again. He swore that a he’d be shot if he didn’t, that there was someone at the back of the boat prepared to shoot if a Marine faltered. This aspect of the war has NEVER been discussed, but it was one of the few things about the war he would discuss, I’ve never doubted him. I do not want to disparage his unit, or his Division, and perhaps it was my Dad’s perception. He was a troubled man late in life, and while he wanted to be happy his past would overcome him from time to time- it was gut wrenching for him, and for us.

I hate this movie on so many different levels I don't know where to begin

Bob Hoskins depiction of Kruschev was brilliant.

00:15 I dunno about this being "the most famous" but Stalingrad (1993) is definitely historically more accurate and, in my view, better! I can't even believe that they didn't use that movie as background .

Ian at “Forgotten Weapons” did a video on what they got right and wrong on the sniper rifles used in “Enemy at the Gates” a few months ago. Very interesting by those of us that collect WWII firearms.

My reading says that the Soviets were not inferior in equipment. In tactics, at this point; yes. So soviet losses were horrendous compared to the Germans. It is not true that Stalingrad had no strategic value. It was a major rail hub and transhipment point. (Astrakhan is SE, head of oil region).

Would love to see a deep dive on Band of Brothers and or The Pacific

36:00 is such a well-crafted and acted scene. The cinematography, the sound, Ed Harris going through all 5 stages in 10 seconds lol

If you are to do more on the Eastern Front movie, Come and See would be a brilliant movie to win. What is called the most horrifying non horror movie. Very accurate especially the fact a lot of war is waiting about and matching, they actually fired real machine guns over the heads of the actors. The presentation of the movie is quite unique. It is based off one of the writers real life experience as a partisan in WW2 and apparently this was not even the half of the horrors he saw.

This movie is by no means at any point 'astonishingly realistic.'

That rifle in the first sniping scene was the venerable Mosin Nagant. It was very dependable, but the stroke was a bit unlike most other bolt actions. They're so dependable, they're still commonly owned today. It wasn't firing for the commisar simply because it wasn't loaded.

The Volga crossing was Incredibly unrealistic accorting to many ww2 soviet vets who have seen this movie and even according to the memoirs of the sniper hinself, where they traveled across at night, fully armed and landed without little to no losses. Ps( also just read that the scene with one rifle between 3 men is also wrong, as site of served in the Soviet Navy so they came there already armed. Also, this is Stalingrad, Soviet Union sent as much equipment there as they possibly could. So much that sometimes they had more rifles and actual ammo.)

I don’t think that this scene 2:38-2:50 is “astonishingly realistic”… It seems to me that the director of the movie didn’t realize what kind of people actually fought in Stalingrad battle, and what was their motivation like. Those terrified faces of the Red army soldiers in the cart make one think that they weren’t aware of the point of their destination and what was awaiting them, which wasn’t true… And the way they were herded to boats, like sheeps… I don’t even mention an evil NKVD officer with a read flag in one arm and a loudspeaker in the other, to me it is “astonishingly” ridiculous and absolutely unrealistic scene…

Dan is very kind to the filmmakers in these videos.

The German film circa 1992 Stalingrad was an interesting take on the German perspective on the battle.

To this day almost every movie that shows a plane go down plays the sound of the StuKa sirene because it is so characteristic. One can only imagine the effect it had on the allied troops, when even 80 years later everyone associates that sound with a diving plane.

3:12 "this scene is astonishingly realistic" are you sure this guy is a historian?

Did he call the attack of unarmed soviet conscripts ( which evidentally did not happen ) astonishingly realistic? I hope I have misheard.

Steve Buscemi was a better Kruschev I think

31:25 - As a student at Cambridge University in 1943, my late mother was tasked with being a companion for a Soviet lady sniper from Stalingrad, sent to speak in factories and promote the Soviet cause. Mum recalled that the damp cold of the wind off the North Sea made the unheated college made the poor lady complain "my bullet wounds, my bullet wounds ache."

The RL Stuka sound evolved into the Space Opera sound of TIE fighters.

Why is so much footage blurred? Are we so sensitive?

This man learned from Call of Duty

5:50 Military history visualized did a good job debunking several Red Army myths, including this one

My grandfather was a transportation officer in Stalingrad, was wounded and awarded a decoration. He rarely spoke about the war, but from my dad (and general interest, speaking Russian and Ukrainian and having a couple of degrees in history) I know a few points that made me dislike the film. Yes, crossing the river was extremely dangerous, and the Stukas were horrifying (this my grandfather did say: the sirens literally made people lose their minds. The inexperienced soldiers would try to physically dig themselves into the ground in order to hide, they wouldn't listen to any orders)- but this was exactly the reason why the crossings were conducted at night. My grandfather had to go back and forth more than a few times as he had to evacuate equipment and bring repaired equipment back in, so he knew the route pretty well. Usually the whole river would be covered in smoke: whether from the bombs and fires or from smoke screens, so that you could barely see anything while crossing. In general the film kind of lacks the smoke. Yes, there were barrier troops, but no, machine gunners were not placed behind regular troops with orders to kill anyone who retreated, and definitely no commissars would be randomly shooting at soldiers on the boats, as they would not be their commanders and if something like that would happened they would be mobbed by the soldiers and totally lose controls. The barrier troops would usually consist of squads who would "hunt" deserters along the shore and in hideouts and would have permission to shoot anyone who would refuse to go back into fighting. Commissars would rarely use their weapons against soldiers, as they would usually be going along the positions and trenches to boost up morale. Also by October 1942 commissars were no longer commanding ranks but just advisors. Officers would threaten to shoot their own soldiers if they retreated (as far as I know my grandfather witnessed something like that), and would do so sometimes, but this would happen within the detachments themselves. By the time the battle was being fought within the city, the civilians would not have been at the shore but would be hiding underground or in the remaining buildings, often cramped by dozens in single basements. They wouldn't leave since they wouldn't have survived in the street and would not have been allowed to the shore. Also, Khruschchev was Stalin's representative (member of the military council) on the Stalingrad Front since July 1942, he was responsible for a lot of organizational issues and spent much time on the Soviet command posts within the city. He was one ruthless bureaucrat, but he also knew the field, and before the battle in the city, before the Soviet southern fronts collapsed in the Spring of 1942, he tried to convince Stalin to call off the disastrous attack on Kharkov, that cost the Soviets more than the whole Battle of Moscow. Eventually I guess I'm glad people did get to see something about the battle and it might have encouraged them to learn more, but this isn't particularly realistic. Though I'm not sure one can actually make a realistic movie about Stalingrad. My grandfather didn't really speak of it for a reason, and he wasn't on the front line constantly.

Dan is awesome as always.

Despite the inaccuracies and propaganda-level fictionalization of the "famous" sniper duel, I really do like this movie. It does a good job at brining the absolutely enormous scale of this battle down to a human level. I wonder how many different individual experiences, sacrifices, struggles, and heroic actions will never be known simply because they've been drowned out by the size of this battle and lost to history.

The rifle with no Ammo is ludicrous

Always have time to stop and learn from Dan Snow, absolute pleasure to watch.

That movie take the title of the William Craig book “Enemy at the Gates”. The book is wonderful. The movie uses less than a page of that book to make the movie. And it’s a story that has been questioned forever.

33:07 Ed Harris is a great actor IMO

It wasn’t just because it bore Stalins name. It was something the Germans were prepared to fight for so Zhukov was able to use it as the cheese in a big rat trap. For the Stavka it was a point to be held so that its force would be pinned down at the end of a salient where it could be encircled and destroyed. They also tried to do the same to the whole of Army Group South by a breakthrough to Rostov on Don in Little Saturn.

So sick of KZfaq censorship. Blurring out scenes is ridiculous.

You described blocking detachments three times in the first 12 minutes like we had never heard you

I spat my coffee out when he referred to the opening scene of this movie as "one of the greatest scenes" and "astonishingly realistic." I literally couldn't take him seriously after that.

The statue of the children holding hands was on the cover of the non-fiction history of the battle called Enemy At The Gates by William Craig which I read decades ago. The novel the movie was based on was called War Of The Rats but its name was later changed to match the film. Craig’s history was excellent but has been superseded by Anthony Beevor’s masterpiece.

I love watching your videos they are so educational and I learn something new from every video i watch.

14:50 excellent detail of wrapping the sling around his arm for stability.

So much wrong... This guy is far from being an "Expert". This movie is highly inaccurate with pretty much everything. He should be pointing out that: - Crossing of the Volga was done at night and did not suffer that much casualties as a result. (Only a few exception happened) - Order 227 was not enforced to shoot retreating troops from a failed attack. It was used mostly to execute officers or leaders that allowed or ordered a non approved retreat. - Rifle shot can't be muted by distant explosion especially in the direction you are firing towards. - Sniper don't aim for the head like every shot in this movie. - Vasily was not a conscript but an already established sniper trainer when the battle of Stalingrad started.

Entertaining movie but not very accurate

Dan, thank you so much. Did I understand you to say, the factory still stands? When I was in Volgograd nine years ago, I made it only to the Flour Mill...and in the fog of the years since, I've forgotten if the Tractor Factory survives...if indeed, that is the factory of which you speak! As for Barmaley Fountain...I'm grateful it's been reconstructed. One of my favorite mementos of my visit is a photo of the reconstructed fountain in front of the Train Station. Best regards!

I always loved Enemy at the gates. Thanks for this one!

Feels good to be here right after posting.

3:10 ok one small call out here History Hit. No documents relating to the Battle of Stalingrad by both German or Soviet records ever noted a unit going into the city unarmed. There were troops who arrived on the otherside of the Volga un-equipped, however were quickly issued equipment and then sent in. The whole “one rifle between two men” may come from the fact that troops who did come equipped later into the battle were actually stripped of most of their rifles and had them replaced with sub-machine guns and other equipment that was better suited to street fighting. As such instead of it being “one man gets the rifle, one man follows the rifle” it’s more “one man gets the rifle, one man gets the submachine gun” This is also widely documented as storm/assault troops were being formed. - a storm/assault troop was essentially a small platoon formed around regular and veteran soldiers equipped with sub-machine guns and large numbers of grenades. Added on would be flame-throwers, AT Rifles (occasionally light AT Guns) or whatever was considered mobile and in need for that unit. - the objective of these men were to usually blow holes in the upper or lower walls of a building, toss grenades into the breech, and run through gunning anything down that wasn’t Soviet, before proceeding to secure every floor up or down from there. Flamethrowers and grenades would be used to clear cellars, and grenades would be used to clear every room and stairway. In addition, a common tactic for multiple assault/storm groups on large building would be to attack from both upper and lower levels at the same time. Why do I note this? Because as the battle went on and these units proved effective in this type of warfare, many reinforcing guard units would be equipped to actually form and replace these losses in these units, meaning that most guard “rifle” units actually got stripped of the majority of their rifles in favour of PPsH and PPD sub-machine guns. 5:05 also if I’m not mistaken, by this point those Stuka sirens had actually been stripped from them for this exact reason - not the fear thing but because it was so notable it actually gave away what was happening and allowed AA units to prepare for the attack and it allowed infantry and vehicles to move for cover or begin evasive manoeuvres to avoid being hit.

Has Dan made a list of his favorite history related movies?

I have seen this movie many times. I remember some scenes by heart. Epic!

Nonsense. Blocking units never shot anybody. Period. Their job was to arrest people who retreated not shoot them. Shooting people would have provoked a mutiny in ten seconds flat

You know, Dan is not a real Historian.

Having shot period rifles quite a bit, the accuracy we see demonstrated on screen does not appear to match what I've seen with wartime rifles, ammunition, and zeros.

Thank you.

Dan is a little bit off the mark saying that sending unarmed soldiers to the other side of the river is "extremely realistic", but to be fair, the editors are cutting out most of what he really is saying. A good overview of how this movie is extremely unrealistic, and even purposefully deceitfull, is this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ppypkreG1LXIloU.html&ab_channel=KayAndSkittles

There was a story about a Russian person who was helping to make this movie, historian or translator or something. When he found out at the end what movie will be at end, he was so ashamed that he participated in making it that he asked his name to be deleted at the end when list of names appears

It's a great movie, but the moral of the story is don't ever imagine historical movies are actually historical.

Stalingrad (1992) Some people have already recommended it, but I want to recommend the following movie as well when it comes to Stalingrad.

You say that Stalingrad had no strategic value. That is not true Taking Stalingrad would have blocked the Volga, a vital route for resources to the Soviets.

I was a Scout Sniper in the US Army back in the 90's and this film was one of the few that at least tried to show how miserable it really was. Hours spent sitting in your own filth, not able to move to pee, suffering bug bites and worse, waiting for the "green light" to take the shot. The only person I trusted was my Spotter PFC Erb, that guy could read the environment better than anyone I ever knew. If he told me 1 click down, 2 left, I didn't question him, he was ALWAYS spot on. This film got a lot wrong, but the overall feeling of it was pretty solid. Being a sniper was terrible at times, your own men loved you for protecting them, the enemy despised you and considered you scum. Our squad motto was "Shoot em in the back!" and being able to take out the enemy without being shot back at was fine by me. At least in the US military you could sometimes rely on your Chain of Command backing you up, but those Russian soldiers were on their own. The German officer exposing himself was a sign that he didn't respect the enemy, and considered them "worthless", Vasily proved him wrong. Koenig either got cocky or excited, thinking he'd taken out Vasily, and it cost him everything. The one strength I had was that I was a runt, and could weasel my way into hide sites that were miserable for bigger guys, and that allowed me to pick spots with little chance of being spotted. Carlos Hathcock might have picked the wrong branch (love you jarheads, no real offense intended) but he was IMO one of the best snipers that ever lived in the Vietnam era or WWII. WWII was a nightmare, the men and women that survived it were truly some of the best. Infantry grunts hate artillery and snipers more than anything else, neither allows you much warning or protection. Don't know if there are any WWII veterans still kicking around today, but by GOD I salute you, whether you were the enemy or ally, you fought well and deserve respect.

Another interesting point about the battle for Stalingrad is that the command post of the Red Army unit doing the fighting was actually on the EAST bank, the same side the Germans were coming from. The reasoning was double. Firstly, the question of morale. The soldiers are more likely to keep on fighting when they can see their superiors in the trenches with them. Secondly, the tactical reality at this stage in the war of the Red Air Force being inferior to the Luftwaffe. By staying really close to the German lines it would be too risky for them to bomb the positions (and the same goes for indirect fire artillery support).

This is my second favorite war Movie behind only “a bridge too far”

9:14 -12:55 is not historiclly accurate russians mass human wave attacks was not common, espcially in Stalingrad. And not being able to give everyone as rifle is also false. The sovietunion was and industrial power house ofc they could give everyone a weapon. As soon as the invasion started russia went into full war economy doubling how much workers had to work and so on. There was definetly no shortage of weapons infact both sides adapted germans adopted new squad compositions and the use of submachine guns flamethrowers etc was problay as common or more common than the rifle. Russians used avtomachikis squad full 10 men smgs squads. While 227 was issued the Soviets did not want to waste lives espically when the fighting reached its peak around this time and they were losing the battle but building forces to surround the city. Remember the russian held hard pressed defence and could not afford to take unnecerary casulties in this time. around barrikady and the genereal factory complex fighting was brutal infact during 1 day alone the main train stationed changed hands over 14 times! and the tractor factory changed hands multiple times sometimes several times a day. After this battle russians became expert in street fighting and cqc and specialed assault regiments were created. The sthurmoviki squads. October 14th when the germans launched and attack all hells broke loose 5 germans divison 300 tanks assaulted russian positions in northern stalingrad with hvy air support german artillery fires for 90th minutes however russian troops creep close to german troops around 15 meter wich mean if the germans opens fire they will risk hitting there own troops. Fighting is so violent and hvy that visiblity drops to just few meters from all the smoke and debris the fighting is stupendos brutal while the soviets lines are breached they hold in the end. Infact all there telephones lines are cut becuse they either melt or are blown from the intense fighting and they are forced to use radios. I dont often hear about them so i want to talk about them omsbon and osnaz the prerunner to spetsnaz throughout the war trained russian partisan, destroyed around a 1000 trains and railway lines, aswell as ambushing german reinforcements blowing up dumbs etc infact they are well over responsible from what ive heard of destroying 145 tanks throughout there combat history they had a crucial role in operation bagration where they were most active. I forgot to mention russian commisars had the authority to basiclly kill for being slighly disheartend.even tho they were never abolished much of there power and abilities were taken away from them and they became much less present from 1942. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrBki5Cm2KeyfqM.html A good video on it he can tell much more than i can.

cross of iron says "hold my pint".....

The biggest and most horrifying battle in history definitely is not Stalingrad.

great job avoiding all the controversies!

How many times do we need to hear about 'blocking detachments'?

I hate how the soviets are portrayed in films, running into battle with no guns and meat wave tactics... in real life they were well equipped and had very advanced battle movements. it was only in the first year of the war the army was being decimated due to a lack of senior leadership, but by late 1942 that wasn't an issue anymore. if you actually look at the ratio of soldiers killed, it was about 2:1, 4.8 million german soldiers died on the eastern front compared to 8.7 soviet soldiers. the ratio would have been dramatically lower with the first year of the war remove and if you count the fact that there were also the armies of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and many foreign volunteers from countries such as Spain.

This movie made me fall in love with the war movie genre

I’m not really clear about this, what’s a blocking detachment again?

The British Press wasnt a free press either

Snipers don’t “tend” to work in pairs, they DO work in pairs, the spotter is necessary to work the scopes

Could you make a video about: Would you survive during Aztec siege?

Academics have long debunked the idea of Red army soldiers being sent to combat without weapons, or the use of blocking detachments as depicted in this movie. The movie is just based on cold war propaganda stories, but it's interesting to see Dan in this video either being unaware of this falsehood or deliberately repeating the myth in lew of the current "anti-Russia" agenda

Aviation geek here: The JU-87 didn't have a siren as such, there were perforated dive brakes that made the sound. HOWEVER, in reading up a bit before writing this, I did find out that on the B model "horns of Jericho" were attached to the landing gear to make it even more terrifying.

"Your father is dead, your brothers are dead! Avenge us on the Fascists..." Damn, this could've been a great movie

Interesting fact about the sirens on the Stuka dive bombers. The only people that hated them more than the victims on the ground, were the Luftwaffe pilots themselves...Most of the pilots despised the sirens as they were deafening while inside the plane.

I don't know why i like this movie so much, it just captures so much drama and reality at the same time, but it's a good story.

I like the movie but the start is utter fiction, it gives the german generals made up version of the war to excuse why they had lost. The casualty ratio in stalingrad was around 1.7x so not even 2 russians to the german. Whereas in this movie it's about 600 to 1 ratio. Same with the number of troops fielded by each side, the germans had more at times and when the russians had more it was at most 1.8x more. The Russian didn't attack and the germans didn't defend like that, remember it is the Russians defending the city, yet all we see is them on the attack this early on. Many russian soldiers were unequipped and under trained but they were on the defensive.

Edit: Stalingrad was more like World War I 'tactics' with the same results. *Why don't we call the 'Sommes Offensive' - British Human Wave tactics?* Edit: German Luftwaffe destroying the entire city of Stalingrad and reporting 'there were no more targets to destroy' is a bit naive in hindsight. Before the Luftwaffe had turned the whole of Stalingrad into a labyrinth of ruins and anti-tank traps, the city was less defensible than it was after. So the Luftwaffe attacks actually worked in the favour of the defender. They created the multiple of snipers' nests. Same thing happened later with the Allies at Monte Cassino. The narrator should have said, when describing the Stukas 'Jericho' sirens 'You must have heard this sound a thousand times before, from WW2 news reels to Disney comic shorts. When I was watching clips of 'Masters of the Sky,' I noticed that many commenters talked about the 'Stuka noise' that had become a cliché. And they were right. In nearly every WW2 piece of newsreel, documentary or what not, if there's diving planes involved, even if they're not Stukas, you always get to hear the 'Jericho' sirens. It appears that most German pilots stopped using these as their effectiveness wore off and after it became clear the Stuka was extremely vulnerable to enemy fighter actions so after a staggering loss of a dozen Stukas in a single attack during the Battle of Britain, the German dive bombers were pulled back from 'front line service' except in areas where the Luftwaffe still had (local) air superiority, parts of the East Front.

Russian infantry men widely used PPh-41 in Stalingrad, as it good for close range fight. not just Mosin's rifles....as shown in this movie...

No, the 'blocking detatchments' were used to "encourage" what we might call "punishment groups." Those were brigades or even as much as a division of troops who had been sent to a punishment detachment for breaking some military law or other. The blocking detachments weren't used for/ against regular troops.

The unbelievable numbers the Russians commited to hold Stalingrad is truly staggering. A Lot is owed to the Russians in WW2. That's not to say that the other allied nations don't deserve praise for their efforts as well. Very informative video. Cheers HH.

2:50 "One of the greatest scenes of all time" That's when you can turn that video off if you care even little about historic accuracy. Bullshit film and bullshit review. Vasily Zaitsev actually wrote memoirs, "For us there were no land beyond the Volga". Not only everyone was eager to fight the enemy (unlike the scared youths in the movie), they received several weeks of training before combat (not thrown into the fire right off the train) and crossed the river at night in small groups with no losses (and without "evil commisars", standing behind them with a handgun) 🤡

My only complaint is that Ron Perlman never comments on the eternal nature of war.

Very much scout style use of scopes there. And one would never send the boss of the whole Sniper school to fight one guy, a expert ,but he would not been alone of he went after one.