Lindybeige's video on the Crocodile "The Most Effective Weapon of World War Two" refreshingly gives this Weapon System (to use a modern term) this accolade because it was later worked out that it caused 27 (if I recall correctly) Germans to surrender for every one it killed, which is not bad going.
My Father (British Army) landed on D+1 and he often recalled how deadly and effective the Crocodile was. Clearing out the aftermath of a Crocodile attack was something everyone tried to avoid for obvious reasons. I find it ironic that the Germans hated the Croc crews and would shoot them out of hand, given that it was the Germans who first introduced modern-style flamethrowers to the battlefield!
More likely Crocodile were often used against defensive bunkers often manned by low quality garbage German static infantry or osttruppen who often were not equipped with proper AT weapons. And even then, German soldiers abandoning bunkers as soon as a Crocodile begin burning it did not always have to do with fear - they were trained to get out asap anyway, with the simple logic being just like inside a burning house - massive flame around consumed all the oxygen soon, thereby suffocating anyone inside quicky, and concrete bunkers likely had even poorer ventilation and would run out of oxygen even quicker. A flamethrower tank like Crocodile maybe useful in early WW2 where foot soldiers had little proper AT weapons, but by 1944 against the Germans, the effective range of its flamethrower became a double-edged sword, as it also put the tank inside effective range of handheld AT launchers of Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, which they could well penetrate even the thick 150mm front of Churchill, not to mention its weaker side armor where soldiers tends to aim at.
The Crocodile...the psychological effect cracked even the most fanatical defensive positions. The primeval terror of spewing flames negated everything it confronted
The DD ... On my visit to the beaches saw a 50mm gun emplacement with a few 75mm holes in it from DDs rolling up, bet the boys on the beach were happy about that
The most effective? That depends very much on what problem you need one for. If you need to cross a canal, then a bridge layer is the most effective, but if you need a passage through a minefield, then a bridge layer becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard. For that job you need a flail (Crab). That's the thing with Hobart's funnies, they were ALL equally useful in their specialized job, but that specialization reduced their effectiveness in almost all other circumstances. Can you imagine trying to navigate a Crab through the back-streets of a small French town? Nightmare. All that said, I'd choose the Churchill Crocodile as the most USEFUL of the funnies, as the thought of a tank with both a big gun AND a flamethrower is a straight 10 on the "Brown Trousers" scale (as opposed to the regular tank's 8, and the Crab's 9). Still useless if you need to cross a canal though...
My wife's Father commanded a troop of Crocs towards the end of the war. Demoralised or poorly trained German troops would flee or surrender at the knowledge of this devilish weapon of war being in the vicinity. His tank worked teamed with a Petard Mortar armed A.V.R.E. as described in this presentation. The latter would crack a bunker or strongpoint, and the Croc would immolate the site either burning or asphyxiating the stunned hapless occupants if they remained, by either 'dry firing' (the fuel ignited) or 'wet firing' which allowed the noxious flammable fluid to penetrate the building and then it would be ignited by a dry firing or round from the main gun. An outraged captured German Officer berated a fellow Commander, declaring that this weapon was "unfair, and un-British!" Mike's last act of the conflict was 'to burn some huts' as he put it, which I presume from his grave expression and unwillingness to explain further were huts in Bergen Belsen or one of it's sub-camps. Post-war he went on to Cromwells, Comets and testing of the new Centurion at Tidworth. It was difficult to equate this gentle kind man who adored his Grandchildren in later life, with the use of such a barbaric weapon system.
i read this like 3 mins into the video and i was convinced you were talking about crocodiles. was imagining units of guys with crocodiles commanding them to attack
Tbf, it's(war) only as barbaric as it ever needs to be. As the warfighters make it be. Sadly, at least one side tends to be an amoral collection of mercenaries with no compunction about brutality, forcing the less aggressive side to either keep up or fall behind. We saw it in ww1, (chemical warfare) and ww2 (napalm, and bombing raids of cities) and even some more modern conflicts. War is a sad state, but a natural one. One we should prepare for at all times, lest we get caught unawares.
Your war story about the German reaction to the Crocs is very interesting and akin to a war diary from the Canadians in September 1916 after the first tank attack towards Courcelette when male and female versions attacked and enfiladed German trenches. A captured officer remarked that ‘the use of tanks was not war but butchery’ such a remark after two years of trench warfare really evokes the terror of such a weapon and a fire breathing one especially so. Thanks for your bringing this story back to life.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow It seems that portable flame throwers were used in WW1. Still trying to find confirmation. Does anyone know the formula for "Greek-fire", which could not be extinguished by water? Supposedly squirtable by handpump against men and ships? Nothing new under the sun!
@@tc2851 Butchery...? My grandfather, artillery observer in the Belgian army suffered lung, and skin damage due to German clorine, and mustard gas attacks WW1. Denial, lies, and propaganda everywhere! POW castrations in Ukraine/Russian war...
The petart didn't require the loader to get out, they had a sliding hatch, the barrel hinged to the vertical and the new 'dustbin' was pushed up into it. There is film on TH-cam of this being done. His arms were exposed (briefly) but he didn't get out of the tank.
@@Halalaka I think "expose himself to enemy fire" is what they were going for, but the expression used, while analogous, is obviously an exaggeration. Not sure that I'd call opening a hatch under enemy fire and sticking your arms out "brief", not matter how short a time it takes if I was the one actually doing it. An MG42 could put an awful lot of bullets into the local area during that "brief" time period.
@@aaronleverton4221 He didn't just say they were exposed to enemy fire though, he specifically said "climb up through the hatch". Climbing through something would imply your sticking at least your upper torso through an object, it's not an expression you would use at all to describe just putting your hand through it.
@@Halalaka Tell me, what do find to be meant by "...obviously an exaggeration"? Also, the first comment wasn't really meant as a direct reply to you, not sure why I didn't notice I'd done that.
@@aaronleverton4221Well the time spent on the ineffective MG fire that'd be directed at an AVRE would in reality be spent running if you had somehow already survived the first shot.
Wonderful video as always, I really appreciate going outside to interview the gentleman with the Valentine DD. Chris rocking a flat cap was an added bonus too :D
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Percy Hobart was a real visionary, from his ideas of using tanks, to his training methods and finally his crazy ideas for supporting armour for beach landings. The guy was a genius. 👍
typical of the time a clever man who was sidelined by the usual useless general whose only worth was how to pass the port correctly in the officers mess ..chinless wonders and the worst of the worst was that clown who surrendered at singapore in 1942
@@josephberrie9550Give over... Hobart had many good ideas but also some pretty awful ones. This is the man that conceived the infantry tank because he didn't want his tanks to play with them. 79 Armd Div was an ideal posting for an inspirational commander with a tendency towards irrational ideas. I think he was also a sapper before he went 'tank', so that was an even better match.
@@ralphebrandta lot of americans, especially those who were in operation market garden, would agree with you. I know Eisenhower didn't think much of him.
I LOVE hearing about D-day I guess because I was raised on the films. My Father was in WWII but not in Europe. Myself a Vietnam Veteran and now 71 yrs old and Honor ALL veterans and most especially D-day Veterans. SALUTE to ALL
I was active duty when that movie came out. I saw it on post at Ft Eustis, VA. Several old Veterans attended that viewing. The energy in the audience was unreal, unlike anything I’ve experienced at a movie since. The movie got a standing ovation from those old Vets. This was at an on post AAFEES movie theater, no THX, nothing special kinda theater. It’s hard to put into words how emotional the audience was. I’m not a combat vet, but I could certainly empathize with them. Sorry didn’t mean to go off topic , but since the opening of the video mentioned the movie it just seemed appropriate to talk about it.
Curious coincidence but hardly odd on the realtionship aspect They were members of a pretty rarified social circle after all Very peculiar that Montgomery kicked him out of the Desert Rats 'though - So WHY did he?
@@babboon5764 One quick search later ..... Quote: Lt. Gen. H. M. “Jumbo” Wilson, while praising his knowledge and training skills, condemned Hobart for his quarrelsome nature, accused him of “lacking in stability,” and recommended his relief. Wilson’s boss, Middle East Command Gen. Archibald Wavell, agreed Presumably if there had been an 'Ungrateful Steward of the Bar medal' Jumbo would have has one with a bar
Just the thought of the start to Saving Private Ryan gives me goosebumps. Absolute hell on earth! Cheers from a Australian who's parents were born in Holland in early 1940.
Saving Private Ryan?? Why is the narrator referencing this film all the time? It's a fictional story, and obviously usamerican hype. Bet no surviving veterans were even asked about that day by the author.
@@belleriffraff It's the most realistic depiction of the true nature of the D-Day landings (though I will give credit to Band of Brothers). Whilst the personnel involved in it are fictional, its events are not. It is an American film, hence why it focused on an American landing rather than a mixed offensive. Just because a story is fictional does not make its setting so; as for the Allied bias...where? D-Day was a successful operation, it was bound to be depicted as so. The realism presented over the course of its story is built in part not to make clear the scope of its tragedy, but rather to make a humble note of it. The visage of thousands of dead bodies, rounds of ammunition, hundreds of large detonations does not make great media for anyone but the most immature or ill informed.
The accounts of real life ww2 veterans were very much involved in the making of saving private ryan, especially the omaha beach scene. You sound like someone who just assumes things and then acts like its the obvious truth. 'The Omaha Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan (1998) was depicted with so much accuracy to the actual event that the Department of Veteran Affairs set up a telephone hotline for traumatized veterans to cope ' @@belleriffraff
Don't you mean RUSSIA that actually defeated Germany and had them on the Run before the allies even turned up. They also defeated Japan the reason the US used the bomb to make them surrender to America not Russia.
As a former armoured engineer (90-2000), this video is even more important to me, as it gave the history of a job I loved doing. (Ch)AVRE and (Ch) AVLB. Many thanks
There are actual pictures dating back to WW1 of Mk5 tanks being trialled in an AVLB role and, of course, there are numerous pictures of them with large fascines fitted. So in theory, the Armd Farmer role can be traced back to WW1.
Just in case anyone gets confused, the 29 *millimetre* designation for the dustbin launcher on AVRE refers to the diameter of the rod it launches on, not the dustbin itself.
Dear Lord! Anyone who goes fishing on the sea can relate to how scary might've been to try landing any DD (forget the enemy fire). We almost drowned a couple of time while in a boat. Frequency of the wave is everything and don't think we can predict that even with modern technology. Cheers, awesome documentary!
@@JeromeKatchin-jr1um Actually it was you that missed what was stated in the video i.e. at around 11.10 of the video, the man being interviewed (John Pearson), clearly stated that "the crew would get down under armour, for the last run ashore". Obviously this was done when the 'floating tank' got within range of the guns and being privy to the well-known fact that canvas offers inadequate protection against bullets.
You are both right. The crews generally rode on top of the tank until the very last moment when they crewed it as normal. I believe the driver was the exception being that he drove the tank off the landing vessel until the beach. 👍
There were many accidents while the crews were training, especially when they tried some frogmen equipment for emergency escape, so they dropped the idea.
The DD's routed to Omaha sank because they were released too far from shore in rough seas. Fortunately, almost all of the crews were able to abandon, and were picked up.
The U.S. Marines deployed Crocodile-like Shermans late in the war and they were a high demand item for the Marine infantry dealing with strongpoints. There's some pretty awesome TH-cam video of them in action on Iwo Jima. I think ITV's "World At War" series used some of the same film when they covered that phase of the Pacific war back in the 1970s.
You're talking about the Pacific, right? Would have helped a lot there. Might have changed the pattern of the Japanese not surrendering fast enough, as well.
@@gameburn178 The Marines deployed in the Pacific, and my specific reference to Iwo Jima is to an island in the Bonin group 600 miles south southeast of Tokyo... and still didn't cause any significant surrenders by Japanese troops.
Many thanks for sharing 👍🏻. My Grandfather served in 1944-45 he's still alive. He was only 16 in 1944. He remembers seeing amd hearing the v2 rockets coming in over the channel into England. I shared this video with him.
@4ebees You are probably correct, I bet he saw both the v1 and v2. He was at the docks coming off his ship from the United States when he saw the first one come over head. He told me he couldn't believe that they weren't aiming them at the docks where the fuel and ammunition were being unloaded.
@@Nordic67 I believe "aiming" those weapons is a bit of a stretch... I'm sure your grandad thought they were aiming at him!!! ... thank him for his service, from a grateful brit! 👍👍
@@Nordic67 That would be the V1. They were like small planes. The V2 could be observed launching (in France) but as it's flight path took it to the edge of space no-one saw them on their way down. Scary times for all the people living then. Glad he made it through! :)
Thanks for this video. Whilst I appreciate that this was about the 79th Armoured Division, I am surprised that no acknowledgement was made of the Royal Marines 95mm howitzer-armed Centaurs, which , fighting alongside the 79th also played an absolutely vital role on the beaches.
I saw an M4 Duplex drive with 76mm turret and rotting canvas screens parked outside a workshop at US Army's Aberdeen Proving ground in Maryland in 1978. I have always wondered what happened to it. I hope it's on display somewhere.
@@kirotheavenger60 Yeah, I had built several Sherman model kits and I saw that right away. But Aberdeen is where they tested prototypes. Maybe they built it later in 1944 and decided they no longer needed another production run. Only the Army knows.
Oh man I love the Brits! I've been studying Mr. Churchill and he was always looking to Win. He never settled for a defensive action. He had with him an assistant, Mr. Lindemann I believe who was a former German Scientist and Mr. Churchill would bounce ideas off of this man. Mr. Churchill would entertain just about any hairbrained scheme or gadget, just as long as it contributed to winning the War. My Navy owes a great deal to the Royal Navy and like I said, I just love our cousins across the pond. They adapt and overcome. Now go and enjoy my Phillies as they lump up the Mutts. I am from Phila. so you'll just have to get over that.
Always nice to hear an American Anglophile! It sometimes feels like too many yanks forget that they even had any allies, let alone proper partners in winning the war. Cheers!
Thankyou Sir ,I noticed you used the Word Adept .its better used in Conjunction with the Word adapt. British Soldiers are taught be adept at being adapt .No plan Runs smoothly has you join with the Enemy .So being able to think on your Feet and adapt to the situation you find yourself in
Churchill was a brilliant speaker, a compelling writer, and sot-ridden alcoholic and pathological liar. Right after the French armistice with Germany in June 1940, Winston was with his son Randolph at Chartwell, the family estate. Randolph asked his father "now that France has surrendered, how are you planning on winning this war?" Winston never missed a beat, replying "I'm going to drag the Americans into it..." And he did. After all, it had worked in 1917. By the way, with his prolific spending and out-of-control drinking, Chartwell was in danger of being sold to pay his debts when a wealthy Jewish benefactor from South Africa paid the debt to save the estate. However, everything comes with a price. Furthermore, Frederick Lindemann (or Viscount Cherwell, as he was titled, but Churchill referred to him as "the Prof"), had immigrated from Germany as a child in the 1880s when his father was going to be arrested for embezzlement as a bank director. As a result, he absolutely despised the Germans, blamed them for all of his his woes, shortcomings and sins, and was an outspoken advocate for the so-called "area bombing" which killed hundred of thousands of women and children. Yea, quite a guy, that Lindemann.
@sealteamtwo117 Of Course Britain got Japan to Attack Pearl Harbour to get the Americans into the Second World War. Then made Hitler Declare war on America 1st .Yeah all Churchills Fault.
Outstanding video, thank you so much! The production values are equal to anything available on traditional TV and producing material of this quality is expanding the Tank Museum's role from historic preservation to being one of the foremost educational subject matter experts.
Thank you very much, my Uncle Ron Tabor was a tank driver with The Westminster Dragoons during the D Day operations. I didn't ever ask him what he did as a difficult one, so thank you for giving me an insight JW
This is an outstanding channel. Imperial War Museum, please take note. A real expert is narrating without goofy camera angles and breathless narration.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the IWMs videos are lacking. I've noticed that they often show the wrong clips for the subject matter, i.e., a clearly recognisable Konigstiger when they are talking about a Tiger 1 or American troops when they are talking about Brits. I have chastised them for it on occasion with no reply from them but, strangely, have been slated by other contributors. You would think that, probably, the foremost War museum in the world would be able to do better.
My late father, Ken, was a loader / operator in a Sherman crab. He was on Sword on D Day as part of the Westminster Dragoons. I got lots of information on his “war” from the Regiment in the early 2000s. I need to visit the Tank Museum again!
Hobart also invented and developed the Blitzkrieg tactic of fast tank assault .. but senior military where still stuck on horse and infantry tactics . The germans however took note and studdied Hoberts papers in tank warfare he wrote before the war and used it successfully to conquer most of Europe in the beginning .
Blitzkrieg wasn't fast tank assault, it was unrelenting cavalry advance day and night with the use of pervitin. Germany had a deep history of exactly this kind of manoeuvre warfare (Bewegungskrieg), thanks somewhat to denmark. The term blitzkrieg was erroneous really, as western journalists applied it to the german propaganda that implied it's 'mechanized' division were heavily supported by tanks and aircraft, whereas in practice that was on paper and all they really had was horses and a hell of a lot of stimulant drugs. While we anticipated Kesselschlacht at dunkirk, in reality the mobile infantry were starting to hallucinate, had no supply lines, artillery support, air support (forward airfields were not ready) and thus they were in no position to actually run british forces into the sea, not withstanding the royal navy artillery support. Not to discredit hobart and his effect on tank thought and probably on people like Rommel who actually achieved these feats with armour, it was in spite of german doctrine not due to adopting it. In reality this theory was vital in my view- as britain was able to develop countermeasures in lieu of practical experience. In ww2 we see perhaps the most consistently competent engagements in military history. It's a bit cliche but- its much more complicated than that.
Hobart and Liddel-Hart wrote the book on tank tactics. Both the British and Germans read it. The British ignored it. The Germans adopted it. The British started to take notice of its teachings in North Africa. Rommels counter was anti-Tank gun ambushes. Allied victory there was through air power, command of sea lanes and the Torch landings introducing US forces.
@@keithdurose7057The British way of fighting major wars is 1) act as part of a coalition with continental partners 2) deploy only a relatively small expeditionary land force in support 3) use its powerful navy to control the seas and choke the enemy's supplies. In 1939-1940 the primary land force facing Germany in the west was France and UK was expecting to work in conjunction with them.
Great to see these things still running and being showed around. Good job to this guy for keeping this tank in great condition. It's sad to think about the things we've lost due to someone thinking that's not important at the time.
Thank you Tank Museum. What a typically well-made video. We're so glad this all worked 80 years ago and grateful for the Museum's part in maintaining the memories. Lest we forget.
Many years later, my father was in the last remainder of the "funnies": 2 Armoured Engineer Squadron in Iserlohn, when I was a boy (mid 1970s). Although the Churchills had been mostly replaced by Centurions they still had a Churchill ARK (it became the bridge, rather than laying it) and I remember it breaking down "again" during a demo day.
Oh man .... *That is both incredibly sad & extreamly uplifting* The ingenuity, the bravery, the sheer determination are a beacon of what's possible Or rather, what once was. The people may well still be the same. The infrastructure & the political will ............. The timing of this superb episode is of course perfect & poignant
Germany tried to get Bagpipes declared “Unfair weapons of war” because of the positive effect on British morale… So it shouldn’t be surprising that they’d want other things banned 😂
It was they who brought back the flame thrower as a weapon in ww1. They had no problem converting char b1 French tans to flame thrower tanks once captured.
@@patrickporter1864 But aggressors have never accepted equality in war…. Just look at Russia today…. Using nuclear power stations as artillery bases to avoid retaliatory strikes….
One of the interesting things about World War II allies is that the United States excelled in production of materiel and also in quality control, consistency, and reliability, with some innovation, especially in air frames, but once the tanks were set as the M4 Sherman, there were only incremental improvements. But the real people who figured out all sorts of weird solutions to all sorts of really thorny problems on many levels, were the ingenious Brits. "You need a tank destroyer gun on a Sherman carriage? we've got a three pounder that'll do the job and we'll call it the Firefly." (British genius also gave our iconic weapons their iconic nicknames) "We can modify tanks to do all sorts of things, from swimming to flailing for mines to punching through hedgerows. (US was also really good at this. It was our tank). You want one of the world's best aircraft engines? Here are the plans for the Merlin; you Yanks can produce our engine faster than we can. Every time outside-the-box ingenuity was called for, British ingenuity came through. It became a crucial complement to the support that the United States could provide through its productive capabilities. I love the British tenacity in working a problem and their creativity in solving one. "What we need is a bomb that will skip over water like a stone, sink next to a dam, and it blow it up!" The British created one. I guess we'll end on this note: If you really need to distract the enemy from where an invasion is going to take place, one way is to make up a fake British officer from an unfortunately dead real human being, and let the enemy "find" him with all the plans for the bogus invasion. I love the British.
I read an account of Croc being ordered to a crossroads to clear the enemy from the buildings. It went to the centre and just rotated the turret flaming the full 360 degrees. The enemy that could had fled but I don't think the crew knew there was wounded laying on the floors as the flame entered the windows. They say any crew captured by the Germans were immediately shot, so I don't think it will have been a popular position!!
@@kylekinsey2624 👍 You've got me there. I think the point of the story was the immobile wounded who couldn't get out the way. I think the book was "Overlord" by Max Hastings?
J F C Fuller was a brilliant early British tank advocate... but it was the Germans who took his ideas and made them real.... they do get the credit for that! It's one thing to theorise, its entirely another thing to put the ideas into effective practice.
I can’t imagine the pact flamethrower tank. I saw a private demonstration of a Stewart tank with a coax flamethrower and it was brutal. That was a small flamethrower matched to the one in the video and was devastating.
You can bet that any crew of a flamethrower tank would not be taken alive by the enemy if their vehicle got disabled. Flamethrowers were very effective against bunkers and fortified positions, but universally loathed.
The crocodile is aknowlaged as the most effective weapon system ever produced. 97% combat effective. If they had infantry support visible to the germans they just had to give a blast of flame from a distance as a warning and most of the enemy would surrender
@@scrubsrc4084 That would seem pretty intimidating...and yet in the Pacific, it was a completely different story; very few instances of any Japanese surrendering, even in the face of those horrid weapons.
@@seanericcallaghan2548 The Japs were a totally different kettle of fish, for them it was 'Death before Dishonour'. Hirohito was a living god to most Japs so it was an honour to die for him and the homeland, even in excruciating pain.
@@trevorashworth7307 They were originally (1944) called Assault Vehicle apparently which I assume was changed to Armoured as they became more general usage.
I learnt about Hobart whilst I served in Detmold Germany at Hobart Barracks. He truly was a remarkable man using lateral thinking. We are lucky to have him and Churchill had the vision to employ him. Thinking back I believe he was also involved in the logistics or resupplying front line troops for operations. As a JLR Trooper I spend many hours at the Tank Museum at Bovington.
The actual reason the losses were less on the British beaches was the pre-landing bombardment was longer. The Americans beach had a half hour less of naval bombardment, purely because of the extra distance they had to travel to get into attack. That, and the fact that the British force was slightly incorrect in its landing but in a way that paradoxically helped them deal with the defenses.
Actually, I think (having seen both landing sites) the reason there were more casualties is Omaha Beach was lined with cliffs and a gully with a pill box on the top. Also, the guns were sited to rake the beach. It was a massacre they were pinned down on the beach until a few got on top of the cliff to engage the Germans.
@@lufe8773 I wasn't guessing, I was quoting Churchill from his "History of the second world war". EVERY post-action report passed over his desk. And in the book, he thanks the various organisations that he consulted while writing the book. If he said something as fact, it was so.
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 Thanks for the reply and I wasn't suggesting you were guessing. In case you're wondering I am English myself and, I have been there and seen the beaches and I stand by my 'belief' the Omaha Beach was by far the most defended and difficult to land on. . . quote "The men landed under heavy fire from gun emplacements overlooking the beaches, and the shore was mined and covered with obstacles such as wooden stakes, metal tripods, and barbed wire, making the work of the beach-clearing teams difficult and dangerous. Casualties were heaviest at Omaha, with its high cliffs". Have a good day
The Fat Electrician has a nice video about General Hobart. Worth a watch. Thank God Churchill recognized his contributions and didn't let the British officer corps force him out of the service.
From what I've read, you may be being a little harsh concerning the degree of disaster at Dieppe. The Commando's attained all their objectives on time, and their actions led to the use of Paratroops on the flanks of the D-Day assault. The effects of shingle on tanks was learned, and "Funnies" developed to overcome such poor going, as well as very detailed survey work, including taking samples was surreptitiously both the invasion beaches for D-Day, and beaches further afield in case this reconnaissance became known. Basically everything encountered at Dieppe that caused problems, was then planned for to ensure such difficulties did not repeat on D-Day, and much that DID work was finessed. The Canadian casualties were truly tragic, but those men bought much essential experience, and allowed D-Day to be a success. They did not die in vain, but contributed to the realisation that a head-on assault of a port was not going to be feasible. The Mulberrry Harbours were born out of the Dieppe experience, as was the logistical train put in place to supply troops as far away as Holland, from the Mulberry harbour. I would not, given all this, describe Dieppe as a disaster. A disaster would have been if we'd not learned anything from it, or failed to deal with problems that were identified in '42.
Fantastic video thanks! I’d love to see a video including maps with all the defences and obstacles on D-Day, and all the operations that were conducted to overcome them. Also some videos, reading parts of the books and browsing them, would be great if possible?
I believe another main reason why Valentine DDs weren't used in D-Day was it had to have its turret pointed back in order for the canvas to be be hoisted up. This would be very inconvenient when the tank needed to point the gun forwards when it reached the beach. Whereas, the Sherman' DDs shorter gun could have the turret pointed forwards the entire time.
The video points out that the late model of the Valentine was equipped with the British 75 which was rebarrelled 6lb gun that fitted the same HE shell as the Shermans. The Sherman was of course better armoured, more powerful and reliable so obviously favoured anyway. The turret reversal problem stemmed from the turret being lower in height and situated closer to the front of the vehicle on the Valentine. @@tanfosbery1153
Love it! I'm like the "DiCaprio meme" 3 times a minute watching this: "Aha! that's a AVRE, oho, Belgian Gates, look a Croc, DD!! :))), A Priest, A Biship, A cemetery Sexton, I went full ecclesiastic :)). Cheers, GG!!
I'm 60, was born 18 yrs after WWII finished, and this is the first time I've ever heard of these tanks. So much for school education. Great video thanks giving credit to the ingenuity to defeat Hitler.
I do find the 29mm spigot mortar (AVRE) thing misleading and the wrong way to express it. The bomb it launched was approx 230mm; measuring the diameter of the spigot doesn't tell us much if anything about the capability of the weapon/demolition charge.
The bore of the gun firing the weapon is 29mm. The weapon may be more or less than this size, like sub-calibre rounds, or spigot mortars, of which the 'dustbin' was one.
@@stevetheduck1425 There is no "gun" or "bore" firing the weapon, it is a spigot mortar using a metal rod or spigot to ignite a propellant charge in the bomb. A description of the ammunition (whichever it is) is 100% more descriptive of its function than to say the spigot is 29mm.
To say it's a 29mm weapon implies it is like a small auto cannon, or something similar to AT guns at the start of the war. It definitely does not convey the meaning of projecting a sizable explosive charge.
Super interesting video. I really like the presenter too, you can tell he's a genuine guy, very natural and loves what he's talking about. A subject to be proud of if your British like me! My grandfather was at d day, which is a weird thought for me.
I was in basic training in the RM wirh private ryan came out. In RM training you have your first shore leave at week 4. Our triwning team told us we needed to go and see it. Im so glad we was forced to go the cinema to watch it. Absolutely amazing opening 20 mins. I was 16 then, where has the time gone. That was 53 years from Dday, and we are now 28 years on from then. Christ i was born just 35 years after the war ended. Im now futher away from my birth than my birth was form the war.
My father and one of my grandfathers were both in the 79th, my father in 42nd Assault Regiment RE, my grandfather (who'd been in the 51st in the BEF, but escaped St Valery because their subaltern got the map upside down during the retreat) in one of the REME Workshops that were essential to the division. It's always good to hear something about the 79th.
Brilliant! Absolutely smashing documentary video today. To think that the British High Command actually cashiered General Hobart. Had the Prime Minister not reinstated him imagine what the landings would have been like without his contribution. Why are so many military leaders so conservative in their thinking? It makes one wonder just what they are learning in the military academies.
One can get an idea of what the beaches would have been like without Hobart by looking at the US landed beaches. They refused the majority of the 'Funnies', using only the DDs. Even the DDs they did use they used poorly resulting in pretty much all set afloat sinking. The American beaches faced a lot of serious issues, issues the British readily solved on their beaches precisely through the use of the Funnies.
Around 3,300 Australians directly contributed to D-Day efforts. Some 2,800 Australian airmen from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force provided crucial aerial support and about 500 sailors served on Royal Navy vessels supporting the invasion.
Some forget Britain was never alone. Commonwealth forces, free forces from occupied nations, they all made a huge difference. The Australian and New Zealanders contribution can't be overstated. To travel so far for a war in Europe when there was a very real threat at home speaks volumes. This was always many different nationalities coming together to fight a common enemy. Respect to all that took part in whatever theatre. 👍
I can't imagine how a man could take knowing his Regiment or Unit was decided to go in on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd waves; how he would look to the skies and curse or thank the fortune that befell him.
Glad to see all these specialised vehicles put to good use when very much needed, I enjoyed this Video very much, thank for putting all this information together, as for the crocodiles, these remind of what happened in WW1 there were Flame throng TOWERS aimed at the Germans, that must of been Terrifying in those days.
My father served with the 141 RAC, the flamethrowers. He is mentioned in a book, The Playboys an unauthorised account of the invasion and the journey to Berlin
The thumbnail reads, "the Nazis said it was unfair." If that's true, we can recall they cried foul when faced with American Doughboys and their Winchester trench guns.
Forty-ish years before "Saving Private Ryan" was "The Longest Day," based on the best selling book of that name. Just watched it last night, a masterpiece.
Dieppe was not "a learning exercise". It was a disaster built on negligence , hubris, and incompetence. When Mountbatten was blown up on his yacht many a cheer went up from Canadian Legion Halls.
The Tank Museum at Bovington Barracks made for 1 of the most interesting Weekends of a former holiday in Britain. Of course it did help that I had inadvertently timed it to the Annual Tank Fest Days. Try to manage it if you have an interest in the subject and get the chance.
When the army who committed atrocities and war crimes said the weapon is too much for them, I laughed. Especially when in WWI the Germans used chemical weapons and flamethrowers, but when the US used shotguns in trenches and the Germans said it's a war crime weapon and they should stop using it against them.
Everyone should do what they can to prevent a race to the bottom and just because someone does something bad doesn’t mean anything is justified against them. Laughing is a stupid argument, grow up a bit.
They had several models under development for Sealion, though they tended to floats rather than the canvas screen. They also had snorkel equipped tanks that worked to a fashion and were used leteron the Eastern front in river crossing. Notably, the Germans also developed the Land-Wasser-Schlepper prefiguring the DUKW. It was more a tug that could move on land where the DUKW was a truck that could float.
Where he became actually quite useful by developing a good relationship with Slim commanding 14th Army, letting him do his thing without interference from London.
The irony of it is, that this German victory ultimately led to their defeat. The allies learnt from their mistakes. The converse is also true, the Germans drew the wrong conclusions from the unsuccessful raid. Creating the "Atlantic wall" was a strategic error. Moving over to the defensive, when it was their aggressive tactical nous that gave them the edge.
@@CGM_68 It was the strength of the Royal Navy and the failure to establish air superiority over the channel that put the Germans on the defensive. The “What we learned at Dieppe led to success at Normandy” line was just the after action justification for a poorly planned poorly executed operation that should never have been put in motion.
Capture advanced coding technology Military historian David O’Keefe spent 15 years searching through the once-classified and ultra-secret war files and says the real purpose behind the Dieppe operation-which cost hundreds of Canadian soldiers their lives - was to capture advanced coding technology from the German headquarters near the French beach . its a very interesting story involving Ian Fleming the james bond author and the attempt by a specialist royal marines outfit to capture a 4 rotor enigma machine . all the " practice for d-day " stuff was just cover for the real reason .
@@Chiller11 I completely disagree. The raid was a shambles, but it taught SO much that could be and was utilised in the real invasion attempt. Its also very easy to say things like this or that "should never have been put in motion" and crow about how amazingly clever we are etc., but we're just benefiting from 80+ years of hindsight.
I understand the Americans completely, I too think it's extremely unsportsmanlike to use "funny's" against Germans, a people famously suffering from a lack of a sense of humor.
To quote from Star Trek, dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. The army that tries to be the most sportsmanlike is the one that more often then not will lose. The lack of funnies cost the Americans dearly, almost costing them Omaha beach.
@@nickdanger3802 All that Bradley accepted were the DD tanks. Most of those sank off Omaha. The troops on the beach had no armored support, no engineer tanks covering breeches, anti-bunker busting mortars, mine sweepers or flame throwers. Beyond what the infantry carried themselves. The guys on Utah beach got lucky that they landed on the wrong beach, which turned out to be less defended. The British and Canadians fought themselves off their beaches with the funnies before tea time. So yeah, having those specialized tanks supporting US troops on Omaha beach probably would have made a big difference.
Lindybeige's video on the Crocodile "The Most Effective Weapon of World War Two" refreshingly gives this Weapon System (to use a modern term) this accolade because it was later worked out that it caused 27 (if I recall correctly) Germans to surrender for every one it killed, which is not bad going.
My Father (British Army) landed on D+1 and he often recalled how deadly and effective the Crocodile was. Clearing out the aftermath of a Crocodile attack was something everyone tried to avoid for obvious reasons. I find it ironic that the Germans hated the Croc crews and would shoot them out of hand, given that it was the Germans who first introduced modern-style flamethrowers to the battlefield!
@@oldfella3919 in a post here, I have related my Father in Law's experience commanding a troop of Crocs later in the war.
@@oldfella3919 The Nazis were hypocrites? Say it ain't so!
More likely Crocodile were often used against defensive bunkers often manned by low quality garbage German static infantry or osttruppen who often were not equipped with proper AT weapons. And even then, German soldiers abandoning bunkers as soon as a Crocodile begin burning it did not always have to do with fear - they were trained to get out asap anyway, with the simple logic being just like inside a burning house - massive flame around consumed all the oxygen soon, thereby suffocating anyone inside quicky, and concrete bunkers likely had even poorer ventilation and would run out of oxygen even quicker.
A flamethrower tank like Crocodile maybe useful in early WW2 where foot soldiers had little proper AT weapons, but by 1944 against the Germans, the effective range of its flamethrower became a double-edged sword, as it also put the tank inside effective range of handheld AT launchers of Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, which they could well penetrate even the thick 150mm front of Churchill, not to mention its weaker side armor where soldiers tends to aim at.
It wasn't that effective on the niponese they mostly dird rather than surrender
Hi Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. Which do you think was the most effective of Hobart's Funnies? Let us know down below
The Crocodile...the psychological effect cracked even the most fanatical defensive positions. The primeval terror of spewing flames negated everything it confronted
The DD ... On my visit to the beaches saw a 50mm gun emplacement with a few 75mm holes in it from DDs rolling up, bet the boys on the beach were happy about that
Were the Bobbin and Fascine tanks used on D-Day? Any pictures?
As I understand there is another DD Valentine 200 to 300 yards from Boscombe pier there are also some others near the forth road bridge.
The most effective? That depends very much on what problem you need one for. If you need to cross a canal, then a bridge layer is the most effective, but if you need a passage through a minefield, then a bridge layer becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard. For that job you need a flail (Crab). That's the thing with Hobart's funnies, they were ALL equally useful in their specialized job, but that specialization reduced their effectiveness in almost all other circumstances. Can you imagine trying to navigate a Crab through the back-streets of a small French town? Nightmare.
All that said, I'd choose the Churchill Crocodile as the most USEFUL of the funnies, as the thought of a tank with both a big gun AND a flamethrower is a straight 10 on the "Brown Trousers" scale (as opposed to the regular tank's 8, and the Crab's 9). Still useless if you need to cross a canal though...
My wife's Father commanded a troop of Crocs towards the end of the war. Demoralised or poorly trained German troops would flee or surrender at the knowledge of this devilish weapon of war being in the vicinity. His tank worked teamed with a Petard Mortar armed A.V.R.E. as described in this presentation. The latter would crack a bunker or strongpoint, and the Croc would immolate the site either burning or asphyxiating the stunned hapless occupants if they remained, by either 'dry firing' (the fuel ignited) or 'wet firing' which allowed the noxious flammable fluid to penetrate the building and then it would be ignited by a dry firing or round from the main gun.
An outraged captured German Officer berated a fellow Commander, declaring that this weapon was "unfair, and un-British!"
Mike's last act of the conflict was 'to burn some huts' as he put it, which I presume from his grave expression and unwillingness to explain further were huts in Bergen Belsen or one of it's sub-camps.
Post-war he went on to Cromwells, Comets and testing of the new Centurion at Tidworth.
It was difficult to equate this gentle kind man who adored his Grandchildren in later life, with the use of such a barbaric weapon system.
i read this like 3 mins into the video and i was convinced you were talking about crocodiles. was imagining units of guys with crocodiles commanding them to attack
Tbf, it's(war) only as barbaric as it ever needs to be. As the warfighters make it be. Sadly, at least one side tends to be an amoral collection of mercenaries with no compunction about brutality, forcing the less aggressive side to either keep up or fall behind. We saw it in ww1, (chemical warfare) and ww2 (napalm, and bombing raids of cities) and even some more modern conflicts. War is a sad state, but a natural one. One we should prepare for at all times, lest we get caught unawares.
Your war story about the German reaction to the Crocs is very interesting and akin to a war diary from the Canadians in September 1916 after the first tank attack towards Courcelette when male and female versions attacked and enfiladed German trenches. A captured officer remarked that ‘the use of tanks was not war but butchery’ such a remark after two years of trench warfare really evokes the terror of such a weapon and a fire breathing one especially so. Thanks for your bringing this story back to life.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow
It seems that portable flame throwers were used in WW1. Still trying to find confirmation.
Does anyone know the formula for "Greek-fire", which could not be extinguished by water? Supposedly squirtable by handpump against men and ships? Nothing new under the sun!
@@tc2851
Butchery...? My grandfather, artillery observer in the Belgian army suffered lung, and skin damage due to German clorine, and mustard gas attacks WW1. Denial, lies, and propaganda everywhere! POW castrations in Ukraine/Russian war...
Thanks!
Thank you very much 😊
Good on you mate, I just buy stuff from their shop because I am selfish like that and now I have a KING TIGER SHELL...next to my TV!
Probably the best presentation the Tank Museum has ever done. It answers so many background and design questions.
The petart didn't require the loader to get out, they had a sliding hatch, the barrel hinged to the vertical and the new 'dustbin' was pushed up into it. There is film on TH-cam of this being done. His arms were exposed (briefly) but he didn't get out of the tank.
Even the photo stills of the petard they used for this very video show the crew loading it from inside.
@@Halalaka I think "expose himself to enemy fire" is what they were going for, but the expression used, while analogous, is obviously an exaggeration. Not sure that I'd call opening a hatch under enemy fire and sticking your arms out "brief", not matter how short a time it takes if I was the one actually doing it. An MG42 could put an awful lot of bullets into the local area during that "brief" time period.
@@aaronleverton4221 He didn't just say they were exposed to enemy fire though, he specifically said "climb up through the hatch". Climbing through something would imply your sticking at least your upper torso through an object, it's not an expression you would use at all to describe just putting your hand through it.
@@Halalaka Tell me, what do find to be meant by "...obviously an exaggeration"?
Also, the first comment wasn't really meant as a direct reply to you, not sure why I didn't notice I'd done that.
@@aaronleverton4221Well the time spent on the ineffective MG fire that'd be directed at an AVRE would in reality be spent running if you had somehow already survived the first shot.
The people who thought of these things were incredible. The people who crewed them were heroes.
We owe so much to them.
I totally agree. The Greatest generation.
They, unknowingly, destroyed Europe and the wrong team. Now, the whole world is infected with this weird bolshevik-commie grossness.
A tank cant work if nobody be manin' em'
Like the replacement plan that is taking place in White countries and the continued pillaging of our financial resources.
they were no more heroes than any others, but the weapon was utterly brutal and there is a reason why it was banned
Wonderful video as always, I really appreciate going outside to interview the gentleman with the Valentine DD. Chris rocking a flat cap was an added bonus too :D
Other than the fact that some of it is fiction.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Percy Hobart was a real visionary, from his ideas of using tanks, to his training methods and finally his crazy ideas for supporting armour for beach landings. The guy was a genius. 👍
typical of the time a clever man who was sidelined by the usual useless general whose only worth was how to pass the port correctly in the officers mess ..chinless wonders and the worst of the worst was that clown who surrendered at singapore in 1942
@@josephberrie9550Give over...
Hobart had many good ideas but also some pretty awful ones. This is the man that conceived the infantry tank because he didn't want his tanks to play with them.
79 Armd Div was an ideal posting for an inspirational commander with a tendency towards irrational ideas. I think he was also a sapper before he went 'tank', so that was an even better match.
@@josephberrie9550 Montgomery is a contender for the top spot in the less than worthless general contest.
@@josephberrie9550exactly true. I just finished making a similar comment to someone else's post above.
@@ralphebrandta lot of americans, especially those who were in operation market garden, would agree with you. I know Eisenhower didn't think much of him.
I LOVE hearing about D-day I guess because I was raised on the films. My Father was in WWII but not in Europe. Myself a Vietnam Veteran and now 71 yrs old and Honor ALL veterans and most especially D-day Veterans. SALUTE to ALL
Thank you for your service during that time.
I was active duty when that movie came out. I saw it on post at Ft Eustis, VA. Several old Veterans attended that viewing. The energy in the audience was unreal, unlike anything I’ve experienced at a movie since. The movie got a standing ovation from those old Vets. This was at an on post AAFEES movie theater, no THX, nothing special kinda theater. It’s hard to put into words how emotional the audience was. I’m not a combat vet, but I could certainly empathize with them.
Sorry didn’t mean to go off topic , but since the opening of the video mentioned the movie it just seemed appropriate to talk about it.
One of the oddest facts about Hobart was that he was Montgomery's brother-in-law!
Married to his sister or was Monty married to his?
@@moblinmajorgeneral monty was married to hobart's sister
But the point is that Hobart came up with a solution that saved many British and Canadian lives.
Curious coincidence but hardly odd on the realtionship aspect
They were members of a pretty rarified social circle after all
Very peculiar that Montgomery kicked him out of the Desert Rats 'though - So WHY did he?
@@babboon5764 One quick search later ..... Quote:
Lt. Gen. H. M. “Jumbo” Wilson, while praising his knowledge and training skills, condemned Hobart for his quarrelsome nature, accused him of “lacking in stability,” and recommended his relief. Wilson’s boss, Middle East Command Gen. Archibald Wavell, agreed
Presumably if there had been an 'Ungrateful Steward of the Bar medal' Jumbo would have has one with a bar
Just the thought of the start to Saving Private Ryan gives me goosebumps. Absolute hell on earth! Cheers from a Australian who's parents were born in Holland in early 1940.
As Tom Hank's character said, none of the DD tanks made it onto Omaha. One of the reasons the landing was so costly.
Saving Private Ryan?? Why is the narrator referencing this film all the time? It's a fictional story, and obviously usamerican hype. Bet no surviving veterans were even asked about that day by the author.
@@belleriffraff It's the most realistic depiction of the true nature of the D-Day landings (though I will give credit to Band of Brothers). Whilst the personnel involved in it are fictional, its events are not. It is an American film, hence why it focused on an American landing rather than a mixed offensive. Just because a story is fictional does not make its setting so; as for the Allied bias...where? D-Day was a successful operation, it was bound to be depicted as so. The realism presented over the course of its story is built in part not to make clear the scope of its tragedy, but rather to make a humble note of it. The visage of thousands of dead bodies, rounds of ammunition, hundreds of large detonations does not make great media for anyone but the most immature or ill informed.
The accounts of real life ww2 veterans were very much involved in the making of saving private ryan, especially the omaha beach scene. You sound like someone who just assumes things and then acts like its the obvious truth.
'The Omaha Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan (1998) was depicted with so much accuracy to the actual event that the Department of Veteran Affairs set up a telephone hotline for traumatized veterans to cope
'
@@belleriffraff
@@belleriffraffwhy make such a foolish statement assuming something is true, while it’s not true in reality
Glory to the Heroes of D-DAY!🇺🇲🇬🇧🇲🇫🇵🇱🇨🇦
And let's hope history doesn't rhyme.
👍
🇨🇿🇸🇯🇳🇱
Don't you mean RUSSIA that actually defeated Germany and had them on the Run before the allies even turned up. They also defeated Japan the reason the US used the bomb to make them surrender to America not Russia.
@@benmanning4340🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 the people who actually defeated Germany once again fighting Nazis backed by the west in Ukraine
Thankfully and rightly so, history recognises the contribution Hobart made in securing victory.
As a former armoured engineer (90-2000), this video is even more important to me, as it gave the history of a job I loved doing. (Ch)AVRE and (Ch) AVLB. Many thanks
There are actual pictures dating back to WW1 of Mk5 tanks being trialled in an AVLB role and, of course, there are numerous pictures of them with large fascines fitted. So in theory, the Armd Farmer role can be traced back to WW1.
Former 32AER Cent AVRE driver here! Left in Feb. 1990 so missed all the stuff that happened outside of Germany.
Just in case anyone gets confused, the 29 *millimetre* designation for the dustbin launcher on AVRE refers to the diameter of the rod it launches on, not the dustbin itself.
Thanks, very confusing way to designate it!
Dear Lord! Anyone who goes fishing on the sea can relate to how scary might've been to try landing any DD (forget the enemy fire). We almost drowned a couple of time while in a boat. Frequency of the wave is everything and don't think we can predict that even with modern technology. Cheers, awesome documentary!
It would've taken some courage to get in side a 'floating' tank, knowing that you would not be able to get out in a hurry. Brave men, all of them.
You missed what was stated in the video ... the crew rode outside (on top of) the tank but within the skirt while the tank was "swimming" ashore.
@@JeromeKatchin-jr1um Actually it was you that missed what was stated in the video i.e. at around 11.10 of the video, the man being interviewed (John Pearson), clearly stated that "the crew would get down under armour, for the last run ashore". Obviously this was done when the 'floating tank' got within range of the guns and being privy to the well-known fact that canvas offers inadequate protection against bullets.
You are both right. The crews generally rode on top of the tank until the very last moment when they crewed it as normal.
I believe the driver was the exception being that he drove the tank off the landing vessel until the beach. 👍
There were many accidents while the crews were training, especially when they tried some frogmen equipment for emergency escape, so they dropped the idea.
The DD's routed to Omaha sank because they were released too far from shore in rough seas. Fortunately, almost all of the crews were able to abandon, and were picked up.
The U.S. Marines deployed Crocodile-like Shermans late in the war and they were a high demand item for the Marine infantry dealing with strongpoints. There's some pretty awesome TH-cam video of them in action on Iwo Jima. I think ITV's "World At War" series used some of the same film when they covered that phase of the Pacific war back in the 1970s.
You're talking about the Pacific, right? Would have helped a lot there. Might have changed the pattern of the Japanese not surrendering fast enough, as well.
@@gameburn178 The Marines deployed in the Pacific, and my specific reference to Iwo Jima is to an island in the Bonin group 600 miles south southeast of Tokyo... and still didn't cause any significant surrenders by Japanese troops.
Many thanks for sharing 👍🏻. My Grandfather served in 1944-45 he's still alive. He was only 16 in 1944. He remembers seeing amd hearing the v2 rockets coming in over the channel into England. I shared this video with him.
I think you mean the V1s. You couldn't hear V2s until they 'landed'.
@4ebees You are probably correct, I bet he saw both the v1 and v2. He was at the docks coming off his ship from the United States when he saw the first one come over head. He told me he couldn't believe that they weren't aiming them at the docks where the fuel and ammunition were being unloaded.
@@Nordic67 I believe "aiming" those weapons is a bit of a stretch... I'm sure your grandad thought they were aiming at him!!! ... thank him for his service, from a grateful brit! 👍👍
@@Nordic67 That would be the V1. They were like small planes.
The V2 could be observed launching (in France) but as it's flight path took it to the edge of space no-one saw them on their way down.
Scary times for all the people living then. Glad he made it through! :)
Thanks for this video. Whilst I appreciate that this was about the 79th Armoured Division, I am surprised that no acknowledgement was made of the Royal Marines 95mm howitzer-armed Centaurs, which , fighting alongside the 79th also played an absolutely vital role on the beaches.
What a superb presentation! Well done, Tank Museum.
My uncle William "Bill" Grothe served with the Calgary Regiment.
Survived Dieppe and the war.
I saw an M4 Duplex drive with 76mm turret and rotting canvas screens parked outside a workshop at US Army's Aberdeen Proving ground in Maryland in 1978. I have always wondered what happened to it. I hope it's on display somewhere.
Why did the yanks drop them off so far out from omaha.
I don't believe any DDs had the 76mm gun - at least not those used in WW2.
That would be an interesting exhibit you remember then.
@@kirotheavenger60 Yeah, I had built several Sherman model kits and I saw that right away. But Aberdeen is where they tested prototypes. Maybe they built it later in 1944 and decided they no longer needed another production run. Only the Army knows.
Way back when I was a kid, I got a book about the British secret weapons of WWII. Man, they have some pretty creative people working on things.
I just saw a video on Sir Hobart on The Fat Electrician. He was a brilliant man. My favorite is the crab tank with the chains.
Please don't call him that, a knight is always referred too by their Christian name or full name, so it would be Sir Percy, or Sir Percy Hobart.
Great explanation of the specialized armour on D-Day. Thank you
Oh man I love the Brits! I've been studying Mr. Churchill and he was always looking to Win. He never settled for a defensive action. He had with him an assistant, Mr. Lindemann I believe who was a former German Scientist and Mr. Churchill would bounce ideas off of this man. Mr. Churchill would entertain just about any hairbrained scheme or gadget, just as long as it contributed to winning the War. My Navy owes a great deal to the Royal Navy and like I said, I just love our cousins across the pond. They adapt and overcome. Now go and enjoy my Phillies as they lump up the Mutts. I am from Phila. so you'll just have to get over that.
Always nice to hear an American Anglophile! It sometimes feels like too many yanks forget that they even had any allies, let alone proper partners in winning the war. Cheers!
Thankyou Sir ,I noticed you used the Word Adept .its better used in Conjunction with the Word adapt. British Soldiers are taught be adept at being adapt .No plan Runs smoothly has you join with the Enemy .So being able to think on your Feet and adapt to the situation you find yourself in
Churchill was, or could have been a US Citizen, depending on your point of view
Churchill was a brilliant speaker, a compelling writer, and sot-ridden alcoholic and pathological liar. Right after the French armistice with Germany in June 1940, Winston was with his son Randolph at Chartwell, the family estate. Randolph asked his father "now that France has surrendered, how are you planning on winning this war?" Winston never missed a beat, replying "I'm going to drag the Americans into it..." And he did. After all, it had worked in 1917. By the way, with his prolific spending and out-of-control drinking, Chartwell was in danger of being sold to pay his debts when a wealthy Jewish benefactor from South Africa paid the debt to save the estate. However, everything comes with a price. Furthermore, Frederick Lindemann (or Viscount Cherwell, as he was titled, but Churchill referred to him as "the Prof"), had immigrated from Germany as a child in the 1880s when his father was going to be arrested for embezzlement as a bank director. As a result, he absolutely despised the Germans, blamed them for all of his his woes, shortcomings and sins, and was an outspoken advocate for the so-called "area bombing" which killed hundred of thousands of women and children. Yea, quite a guy, that Lindemann.
@sealteamtwo117 Of Course Britain got Japan to Attack Pearl Harbour to get the Americans into the Second World War. Then made Hitler Declare war on America 1st .Yeah all Churchills Fault.
Outstanding video, thank you so much! The production values are equal to anything available on traditional TV and producing material of this quality is expanding the Tank Museum's role from historic preservation to being one of the foremost educational subject matter experts.
Thank you very much, my Uncle Ron Tabor was a tank driver with The Westminster Dragoons during the D Day operations. I didn't ever ask him what he did as a difficult one, so thank you for giving me an insight
JW
❤qqqqewtewetwtwtwtwewewt
This is an outstanding channel. Imperial War Museum, please take note. A real expert is narrating without goofy camera angles and breathless narration.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the IWMs videos are lacking. I've noticed that they often show the wrong clips for the subject matter, i.e., a clearly recognisable Konigstiger when they are talking about a Tiger 1 or American troops when they are talking about Brits. I have chastised them for it on occasion with no reply from them but, strangely, have been slated by other contributors. You would think that, probably, the foremost War museum in the world would be able to do better.
so much better than tv
One of the best videos yet.
Thank you
My late father, Ken, was a loader / operator in a Sherman crab. He was on Sword on D Day as part of the Westminster Dragoons. I got lots of information on his “war” from the Regiment in the early 2000s. I need to visit the Tank Museum again!
Hobart also invented and developed the Blitzkrieg tactic of fast tank assault .. but senior military where still stuck on horse and infantry tactics . The germans however took note and studdied Hoberts papers in tank warfare he wrote before the war and used it successfully to conquer most of Europe in the beginning .
Lots of very clever British thought inter war that was just ignored except by the Germans. One politician was still promoting Horse Cavalry after WW1.
Blitzkrieg wasn't fast tank assault, it was unrelenting cavalry advance day and night with the use of pervitin. Germany had a deep history of exactly this kind of manoeuvre warfare (Bewegungskrieg), thanks somewhat to denmark.
The term blitzkrieg was erroneous really, as western journalists applied it to the german propaganda that implied it's 'mechanized' division were heavily supported by tanks and aircraft, whereas in practice that was on paper and all they really had was horses and a hell of a lot of stimulant drugs.
While we anticipated Kesselschlacht at dunkirk, in reality the mobile infantry were starting to hallucinate, had no supply lines, artillery support, air support (forward airfields were not ready) and thus they were in no position to actually run british forces into the sea, not withstanding the royal navy artillery support.
Not to discredit hobart and his effect on tank thought and probably on people like Rommel who actually achieved these feats with armour, it was in spite of german doctrine not due to adopting it.
In reality this theory was vital in my view- as britain was able to develop countermeasures in lieu of practical experience.
In ww2 we see perhaps the most consistently competent engagements in military history.
It's a bit cliche but- its much more complicated than that.
Hobart and Liddel-Hart wrote the book on tank tactics. Both the British and Germans read it. The British ignored it. The Germans adopted it. The British started to take notice of its teachings in North Africa. Rommels counter was anti-Tank gun ambushes. Allied victory there was through air power, command of sea lanes and the Torch landings introducing US forces.
@@keithdurose7057The British way of fighting major wars is 1) act as part of a coalition with continental partners 2) deploy only a relatively small expeditionary land force in support 3) use its powerful navy to control the seas and choke the enemy's supplies. In 1939-1940 the primary land force facing Germany in the west was France and UK was expecting to work in conjunction with them.
@@gleggett3817
Kind of stating the bleeding obvious there mate!
Great to see these things still running and being showed around. Good job to this guy for keeping this tank in great condition. It's sad to think about the things we've lost due to someone thinking that's not important at the time.
The Fat Electrician did a very fun video on Percy Hobart's Funnies about 4 months ago, definitely worth watching!
Thank you Tank Museum. What a typically well-made video. We're so glad this all worked 80 years ago and grateful for the Museum's part in maintaining the memories. Lest we forget.
Many years later, my father was in the last remainder of the "funnies": 2 Armoured Engineer Squadron in Iserlohn, when I was a boy (mid 1970s). Although the Churchills had been mostly replaced by Centurions they still had a Churchill ARK (it became the bridge, rather than laying it) and I remember it breaking down "again" during a demo day.
Great video as always. I live near Fritton Lake on the Norfolk / Suffolk border - and Valentine DD's were tested there aswell.
Oh man .... *That is both incredibly sad & extreamly uplifting*
The ingenuity, the bravery, the sheer determination are a beacon of what's possible
Or rather, what once was. The people may well still be the same. The infrastructure & the political will .............
The timing of this superb episode is of course perfect & poignant
Germany tried to get Bagpipes declared “Unfair weapons of war” because of the positive effect on British morale… So it shouldn’t be surprising that they’d want other things banned 😂
It was they who brought back the flame thrower as a weapon in ww1. They had no problem converting char b1 French tans to flame thrower tanks once captured.
@@patrickporter1864 But aggressors have never accepted equality in war…. Just look at Russia today…. Using nuclear power stations as artillery bases to avoid retaliatory strikes….
I thought bagpipes were unfair because torture is banned
@@alexroselle Good one :-)
@@patrickporter1864 They also tried Pz II, Pz III and 38(T), but they werent very effective.
Another small instance where The Great Man made a huge difference.
He reinstated Hobart , a small thing with large consequences
Does that make up for him botching greece, crete, norway and almost botching north africa?
@@Colonel_Bat_Guano
In the end, yes. History actually backs that up.
@@seangriffiths7843 lol no, he was a hindrance. Germany lost because it was nearly impossible for them not to.
One of the interesting things about World War II allies is that the United States excelled in production of materiel and also in quality control, consistency, and reliability, with some innovation, especially in air frames, but once the tanks were set as the M4 Sherman, there were only incremental improvements. But the real people who figured out all sorts of weird solutions to all sorts of really thorny problems on many levels, were the ingenious Brits. "You need a tank destroyer gun on a Sherman carriage? we've got a three pounder that'll do the job and we'll call it the Firefly." (British genius also gave our iconic weapons their iconic nicknames) "We can modify tanks to do all sorts of things, from swimming to flailing for mines to punching through hedgerows. (US was also really good at this. It was our tank). You want one of the world's best aircraft engines? Here are the plans for the Merlin; you Yanks can produce our engine faster than we can. Every time outside-the-box ingenuity was called for, British ingenuity came through. It became a crucial complement to the support that the United States could provide through its productive capabilities. I love the British tenacity in working a problem and their creativity in solving one. "What we need is a bomb that will skip over water like a stone, sink next to a dam, and it blow it up!" The British created one. I guess we'll end on this note: If you really need to distract the enemy from where an invasion is going to take place, one way is to make up a fake British officer from an unfortunately dead real human being, and let the enemy "find" him with all the plans for the bogus invasion. I love the British.
My Dad operated in crocodiles, and the resulting horrors of their attacks haunted him forever after... ☹
Yet because of the Crocs he had a forever after to be horrified of. Would he survive those experiances otherwise? That’s the big question.
They're describing their dad's PTSD - @@mickvonbornemann3824 have a word with yourself
I read an account of Croc being ordered to a crossroads to clear the enemy from the buildings. It went to the centre and just rotated the turret flaming the full 360 degrees.
The enemy that could had fled but I don't think the crew knew there was wounded laying on the floors as the flame entered the windows.
They say any crew captured by the Germans were immediately shot, so I don't think it will have been a popular position!!
@@TeddyBear-ii4ycThe flamethrower is on the body of the tank not the turret
@@kylekinsey2624 👍 You've got me there. I think the point of the story was the immobile wounded who couldn't get out the way. I think the book was "Overlord" by Max Hastings?
Hobart is one of the legends history needs to give more credit to…especially all of those who think the Blitzkreig was a German created tactic
J F C Fuller was a brilliant early British tank advocate... but it was the Germans who took his ideas and made them real.... they do get the credit for that! It's one thing to theorise, its entirely another thing to put the ideas into effective practice.
@@trooperdgb9722 Absolutely, very good point!
I can’t imagine the pact flamethrower tank. I saw a private demonstration of a Stewart tank with a coax flamethrower and it was brutal. That was a small flamethrower matched to the one in the video and was devastating.
You can bet that any crew of a flamethrower tank would not be taken alive by the enemy if their vehicle got disabled. Flamethrowers were very effective against bunkers and fortified positions, but universally loathed.
The crocodile is aknowlaged as the most effective weapon system ever produced. 97% combat effective. If they had infantry support visible to the germans they just had to give a blast of flame from a distance as a warning and most of the enemy would surrender
@@scrubsrc4084 That would seem pretty intimidating...and yet in the Pacific, it was a completely different story; very few instances of any Japanese surrendering, even in the face of those horrid weapons.
@seanericcallaghan2548 thay makes it no less effective. Run away, surrender or bbq. Its all a win
@@seanericcallaghan2548 The Japs were a totally different kettle of fish, for them it was 'Death before Dishonour'. Hirohito was a living god to most Japs so it was an honour to die for him and the homeland, even in excruciating pain.
What a splendid and courageous day that was.
17:45 as a former armoured engineer we called our AVREs “Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers”
That's what I thought, suprised to hear "Assault Vehicle" but it's most likely to be both depending on the commentator.
As an ex AVRE and AVLB driver it's definitely Armoured
"Assault" was used during WW2 but even then, there was debate what AVRE actually stood for and both "Assault" and "Armoured" were used.
I worked at Vickers and the AVRES were known as armoured vehicle Royal Engineers.
@@trevorashworth7307 They were originally (1944) called Assault Vehicle apparently which I assume was changed to Armoured as they became more general usage.
I learnt about Hobart whilst I served in Detmold Germany at Hobart Barracks. He truly was a remarkable man using lateral thinking. We are lucky to have him and Churchill had the vision to employ him. Thinking back I believe he was also involved in the logistics or resupplying front line troops for operations. As a JLR Trooper I spend many hours at the Tank Museum at Bovington.
i think the flail tanks were the most important of the "funnies".
they were so useful that some of them were still in use decades later.
Thanks
The actual reason the losses were less on the British beaches was the pre-landing bombardment was longer. The Americans beach had a half hour less of naval bombardment, purely because of the extra distance they had to travel to get into attack.
That, and the fact that the British force was slightly incorrect in its landing but in a way that paradoxically helped them deal with the defenses.
The landings on Omaha were also off target - to the extent that they landed nearer to the heaviest defences than planned.
Clearly, you know best, albeit without engaging with the content of the video. Well done sir!
Actually, I think (having seen both landing sites) the reason there were more casualties is Omaha Beach was lined with cliffs and a gully with a pill box on the top. Also, the guns were sited to rake the beach. It was a massacre they were pinned down on the beach until a few got on top of the cliff to engage the Germans.
@@lufe8773 I wasn't guessing, I was quoting Churchill from his "History of the second world war". EVERY post-action report passed over his desk. And in the book, he thanks the various organisations that he consulted while writing the book.
If he said something as fact, it was so.
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 Thanks for the reply and I wasn't suggesting you were guessing. In case you're wondering I am English myself and, I have been there and seen the beaches and I stand by my 'belief' the Omaha Beach was by far the most defended and difficult to land on. . . quote "The men landed under heavy fire from gun emplacements overlooking the beaches, and the shore was mined and covered with obstacles such as wooden stakes, metal tripods, and barbed wire, making the work of the beach-clearing teams difficult and dangerous. Casualties were heaviest at Omaha, with its high cliffs". Have a good day
The Fat Electrician has a nice video about General Hobart. Worth a watch. Thank God Churchill recognized his contributions and didn't let the British officer corps force him out of the service.
From what I've read, you may be being a little harsh concerning the degree of disaster at Dieppe. The Commando's attained all their objectives on time, and their actions led to the use of Paratroops on the flanks of the D-Day assault. The effects of shingle on tanks was learned, and "Funnies" developed to overcome such poor going, as well as very detailed survey work, including taking samples was surreptitiously both the invasion beaches for D-Day, and beaches further afield in case this reconnaissance became known. Basically everything encountered at Dieppe that caused problems, was then planned for to ensure such difficulties did not repeat on D-Day, and much that DID work was finessed. The Canadian casualties were truly tragic, but those men bought much essential experience, and allowed D-Day to be a success. They did not die in vain, but contributed to the realisation that a head-on assault of a port was not going to be feasible. The Mulberrry Harbours were born out of the Dieppe experience, as was the logistical train put in place to supply troops as far away as Holland, from the Mulberry harbour. I would not, given all this, describe Dieppe as a disaster. A disaster would have been if we'd not learned anything from it, or failed to deal with problems that were identified in '42.
Fantastic video thanks! I’d love to see a video including maps with all the defences and obstacles on D-Day, and all the operations that were conducted to overcome them.
Also some videos, reading parts of the books and browsing them, would be great if possible?
I believe another main reason why Valentine DDs weren't used in D-Day was it had to have its turret pointed back in order for the canvas to be be hoisted up. This would be very inconvenient when the tank needed to point the gun forwards when it reached the beach.
Whereas, the Sherman' DDs shorter gun could have the turret pointed forwards the entire time.
And the Sherman fired a much larger HE round
The video points out that the late model of the Valentine was equipped with the British 75 which was rebarrelled 6lb gun that fitted the same HE shell as the Shermans. The Sherman was of course better armoured, more powerful and reliable so obviously favoured anyway. The turret reversal problem stemmed from the turret being lower in height and situated closer to the front of the vehicle on the Valentine. @@tanfosbery1153
Absolutely fascinating! Lest We Forget
Excellent summary and information on the use of the funnies. I really enjoyed thank you.
Love it! I'm like the "DiCaprio meme" 3 times a minute watching this: "Aha! that's a AVRE, oho, Belgian Gates, look a Croc, DD!! :))), A Priest, A Biship, A cemetery Sexton, I went full ecclesiastic :)). Cheers, GG!!
I'm 60, was born 18 yrs after WWII finished, and this is the first time I've ever heard of these tanks. So much for school education. Great video thanks giving credit to the ingenuity to defeat Hitler.
I do find the 29mm spigot mortar (AVRE) thing misleading and the wrong way to express it. The bomb it launched was approx 230mm; measuring the diameter of the spigot doesn't tell us much if anything about the capability of the weapon/demolition charge.
The bore of the gun firing the weapon is 29mm. The weapon may be more or less than this size, like sub-calibre rounds, or spigot mortars, of which the 'dustbin' was one.
@@stevetheduck1425 There is no "gun" or "bore" firing the weapon, it is a spigot mortar using a metal rod or spigot to ignite a propellant charge in the bomb. A description of the ammunition (whichever it is) is 100% more descriptive of its function than to say the spigot is 29mm.
To say it's a 29mm weapon implies it is like a small auto cannon, or something similar to AT guns at the start of the war. It definitely does not convey the meaning of projecting a sizable explosive charge.
Super interesting video. I really like the presenter too, you can tell he's a genuine guy, very natural and loves what he's talking about. A subject to be proud of if your British like me! My grandfather was at d day, which is a weird thought for me.
Fantastic video
Thanks!
I was in basic training in the RM wirh private ryan came out. In RM training you have your first shore leave at week 4. Our triwning team told us we needed to go and see it. Im so glad we was forced to go the cinema to watch it. Absolutely amazing opening 20 mins.
I was 16 then, where has the time gone. That was 53 years from Dday, and we are now 28 years on from then.
Christ i was born just 35 years after the war ended. Im now futher away from my birth than my birth was form the war.
Hobart’s Funnies are some of the most interesting tanks ever made. The Crab is on of my favorites, followed closely by the AVRE.
My father and one of my grandfathers were both in the 79th, my father in 42nd Assault Regiment RE, my grandfather (who'd been in the 51st in the BEF, but escaped St Valery because their subaltern got the map upside down during the retreat) in one of the REME Workshops that were essential to the division. It's always good to hear something about the 79th.
The upside down map anecdote is perfect...classic, totally human, understandable under the desperate circumstances and turned out fortuitously!
@@seanericcallaghan2548 For once, giving a map to an officer was fortuitous😂
Excellent work gentlemen.
Brilliant! Absolutely smashing documentary video today. To think that the British High Command actually cashiered General Hobart. Had the Prime Minister not reinstated him imagine what the landings would have been like without his contribution. Why are so many military leaders so conservative in their thinking? It makes one wonder just what they are learning in the military academies.
One can get an idea of what the beaches would have been like without Hobart by looking at the US landed beaches.
They refused the majority of the 'Funnies', using only the DDs. Even the DDs they did use they used poorly resulting in pretty much all set afloat sinking.
The American beaches faced a lot of serious issues, issues the British readily solved on their beaches precisely through the use of the Funnies.
Chris is such a good narrator
Around 3,300 Australians directly contributed to D-Day efforts. Some 2,800 Australian airmen from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force provided crucial aerial support and about 500 sailors served on Royal Navy vessels supporting the invasion.
Some forget Britain was never alone. Commonwealth forces, free forces from occupied nations, they all made a huge difference.
The Australian and New Zealanders contribution can't be overstated. To travel so far for a war in Europe when there was a very real threat at home speaks volumes. This was always many different nationalities coming together to fight a common enemy. Respect to all that took part in whatever theatre. 👍
I can't imagine how a man could take knowing his Regiment or Unit was decided to go in on the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd waves; how he would look to the skies and curse or thank the fortune that befell him.
Glad to see all these specialised vehicles put to good use when very much needed, I enjoyed this Video very much, thank for putting all this information together, as for the crocodiles, these remind of what happened in WW1 there were Flame throng TOWERS aimed at the Germans, that must of been Terrifying in those days.
Thanks to all involved in D DAY 🎉😊😢
That was splendid! I shall have to watch it again to really assimilate it all.
Thank you for an outstanding and important production. 👍
great video - I love the format of these tank chats
HOBARTS FUNNYS fundamental purposes are still being used to this day .
That's a Legacy no one can deny him .
The carrier version of the crocodile were called the wasp by the Canadians, who used them instead of the crocodiles.
What an excellent summary video! Couple of book orders on the way. Great!
These show the inventiveness (albeit with a massive body of vehicles to work with) that war can bring to the fore.
And some ideas are crazy enough to work.
My father served with the 141 RAC, the flamethrowers. He is mentioned in a book, The Playboys an unauthorised account of the invasion and the journey to Berlin
Germans were quoted “a panzer could beat 10 Sherman’s. Unfortunately, the Americans brought an 11th tank”
A fantastic educational video of our glorious army and navy
Excellent video!
Excellent work, many thanks to ALL!
The thumbnail reads, "the Nazis said it was unfair." If that's true, we can recall they cried foul when faced with American Doughboys and their Winchester trench guns.
That was ww1 and they were talking about Winchester pump 12 gauge shotguns nicknamed Trench Sweepers that soldiers used in slam fire mode.
Forty-ish years before "Saving Private Ryan" was "The Longest Day," based on the best selling book of that name. Just watched it last night, a masterpiece.
Dieppe was not "a learning exercise". It was a disaster built on negligence , hubris, and incompetence. When Mountbatten was blown up on his yacht many a cheer went up from Canadian Legion Halls.
The Tank Museum at Bovington Barracks made for 1 of the most interesting Weekends of a former holiday in Britain. Of course it did help that I had inadvertently timed it to the Annual Tank Fest Days. Try to manage it if you have an interest in the subject and get the chance.
Churchill AVRE lets go!
Very interesting topic on something that I've not seen covers, thanks Johnny
Video 12 of asking you to bring back Workshop Diaries
Sign up as a patreon to see behind the scenes workshop content!
Absolutely marvelous video. Many thanks!
When the army who committed atrocities and war crimes said the weapon is too much for them, I laughed. Especially when in WWI the Germans used chemical weapons and flamethrowers, but when the US used shotguns in trenches and the Germans said it's a war crime weapon and they should stop using it against them.
Also the Germans in WW2 developed a flamethrower variant of the Panzer II
@@alexroselle II, III, 38(T) and also a few Stugs were converted.
Everyone should do what they can to prevent a race to the bottom and just because someone does something bad doesn’t mean anything is justified against them. Laughing is a stupid argument, grow up a bit.
What an excellent, interesting and well produced doc. Well done. Thx
The Germans didn't believe you could have a floating tank....Because THEY couldn't build one!!😊😊😊
They had several models under development for Sealion, though they tended to floats rather than the canvas screen. They also had snorkel equipped tanks that worked to a fashion and were used leteron the Eastern front in river crossing. Notably, the Germans also developed the Land-Wasser-Schlepper prefiguring the DUKW. It was more a tug that could move on land where the DUKW was a truck that could float.
A fascinating account and superbly produced. Many thanks!
Dieppe taught us that Mountbatten should be sent to Burma where he could do less damage.
Where he became actually quite useful by developing a good relationship with Slim commanding 14th Army, letting him do his thing without interference from London.
The irony of it is, that this German victory ultimately led to their defeat. The allies learnt from their mistakes. The converse is also true, the Germans drew the wrong conclusions from the unsuccessful raid. Creating the "Atlantic wall" was a strategic error. Moving over to the defensive, when it was their aggressive tactical nous that gave them the edge.
@@CGM_68 It was the strength of the Royal Navy and the failure to establish air superiority over the channel that put the Germans on the defensive. The “What we learned at Dieppe led to success at Normandy” line was just the after action justification for a poorly planned poorly executed operation that should never have been put in motion.
Capture advanced coding technology
Military historian David O’Keefe spent 15 years searching through the once-classified and ultra-secret war files and says the real purpose behind the Dieppe operation-which cost hundreds of Canadian soldiers their lives - was to capture advanced coding technology from the German headquarters near the French beach . its a very interesting story involving Ian Fleming the james bond author and the attempt by a specialist royal marines outfit to capture a 4 rotor enigma machine . all the " practice for d-day " stuff was just cover for the real reason .
@@Chiller11 I completely disagree. The raid was a shambles, but it taught SO much that could be and was utilised in the real invasion attempt. Its also very easy to say things like this or that "should never have been put in motion" and crow about how amazingly clever we are etc., but we're just benefiting from 80+ years of hindsight.
Absolutely awsome typical understated British excellence, we never have been good at blowing our own trumpet! If only the world at large knew!
I understand the Americans completely, I too think it's extremely unsportsmanlike to use "funny's" against Germans, a people famously suffering from a lack of a sense of humor.
To quote from Star Trek, dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack. The army that tries to be the most sportsmanlike is the one that more often then not will lose. The lack of funnies cost the Americans dearly, almost costing them Omaha beach.
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw How so ?
@@nickdanger3802 All that Bradley accepted were the DD tanks. Most of those sank off Omaha. The troops on the beach had no armored support, no engineer tanks covering breeches, anti-bunker busting mortars, mine sweepers or flame throwers. Beyond what the infantry carried themselves. The guys on Utah beach got lucky that they landed on the wrong beach, which turned out to be less defended. The British and Canadians fought themselves off their beaches with the funnies before tea time. So yeah, having those specialized tanks supporting US troops on Omaha beach probably would have made a big difference.
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw Are there many examples of funnies making a significant difference on Brit/Can beaches ?