I'm still not convinced about barbarossa, i can quote german officials about the incompatibility of the wehrmacht facing winter warfare, and that the winter caused barbarossa to fail.
0:10 Blitzkrieg 0:49 Mecanized German Army 2:05 Battle of Britain 2:45 Operation Sealion 4:01 The US was neutral towards the war in europe 5:01 The Me 262 was too late 5:58 Strategic Bombing was useless 7:05 German Aces were better 8:14 Barbarossa failed due it being delayed 9:50 The axis was an alliance 10:16 Military intelligence won the war
@@adzthesaint i’m guessing he saying that the idea that the British and Americans defeated the Nazis by themselves is more of a fallacy. The Soviet union certainly did the most to defeat the Nazis. Even if the CCCP was almost as evil as the Nazis. The Soviets took on most of the German army, and suffered the most casualties.
Complete rewrite of WWII. The tiger tanks and ME 262 came too late to effect the outcome of the war. As for the strategic bombing, it made it very hard the Nazi to rearm as easily the Allies. The invasion of Russia failed because the Germans had to bail out the Italian in The Balkens in April and May of 1941 which caused the time table to be pushed back to Late June instead late May or early June of 1941. This delay cause the Germans to not have winter clothing available and be caught by the Russian Winter.
Very interesting video. I was reading "D-Day Through German Eyes" awhile back. There was a comment from a German Officer that had been captured that I found very telling. He was being held at the beach and was watching trucks, jeeps, and other motorized vehicles powering off the landing ships. He kept wondering where are the horses? When he realized there were none, he realized the war was over. It does not get enough attention that horses were still used a lot in the German as well as most of the European armies of the period.
I have also read that book and remember that comment. I also remember the one by the fellow who was very impressed that we made little effort to fix damaged vehicles, we just rolled another one out of the motor pool. And another guy who was surprised we were able to ship in all of our food and water, so we didn't have to live off local produce at all.
@@odysseusrex5908 Actually we had good repair capabilities for vehicles, especially armor, keeping vehicles in service, units available. The ones damaged beyond repair or in locations too costly to be retrieved from could be left because of the never ending supply of new.
For those who may have misunderstood the title, "Eurocentric" means the "European Theater of Operation". The Pacific War was a completely different story and is very well covered in Military History Visualized (MHV). MHV's and TIK presentations are up-to-date and outstandingly documented and/or referenced. Besides, Mr. Kast (Bernhard) is Austrian (German-speaking native), he can decipher and understand a lot of the original German sources of information. He also works in academia where he has access to a lot of original documentation. Thank you Mr. Kast for such interesting and informative video productions. I spent my life in the military (28 years), attended the War College (Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, USA) and had to study "lessons learned from WW II" extensively but I have seldom enjoyed lectures that possessed the quality, the illustrations and that stirred up such interest as your video presentations. I wish you could teach military history in NATO higher education facilities (Military schools, colleges, war colleges...). Again, thank you, Ciao, L Kapitän zur See USN (Ret), Maine, USA.
@lancelot1953: the word "means", which you employ, would probably be better qualified by a term such as 'in this context', since Eurocentric is merely a focus on European politics, culture, history and heritage: it doesn't mean a theatre of operations.
First, thanks for your service, second, thanks for your insight into Mr. Kast's identity. I really love his videos and his accent. Thanks to both of you.
As an English speaking historian, thank you very much for producing these videos! It's great information and I appreciate you working outside your native language to bring it to us!
Brian Holdren oh oh YES! The alien Anewknocky from the planet Nahbooboo! Also the United Nations armies hiding on the borders of Canada (damn communists!) and Mexico!!!!!!!!!!! Did you know the first "Red Dawn" movie is a TRUE story?!!...and and...lol, that's enough, can't keep up.
Rob Aldridge it's shameful that youre so old posting things like this. Hopefully it's not too late for you to go to your grave while not being totally propagandized, but it's hard to tell. Buildings don't collapse from jet fuel you dumb old fuck, especially building seven which wasn't even hit you predictable propagandized clown.
Dylan Milne Shermans were awesome tanks but got outdated by 1944. Against Panthers and tigers and even that with fireflys they matched them. And tigers were pretty shit tanks overall. Since they were so unrelieable.
true, since a large majority of the public viewed Germany as a civilized and wonderful nation. It was a difficult job for FDR and the Department of Information's head Robert Horton to convince otherwise
Bryce Boepple Nobody was innocent in WWII but saying that the war was for money doesn't make any senes. Great Brtitan had it empire destroyed, the USA aquired so much debt we still haven't recovered, if anything Germany benefited the most economically seeing how after the war the German debt was wiped and as of now it has become the econmic power house of Europe. The USA didn't make back as much money as you would think.
Brian, exactly. Bryce's FDR quote is his critique of Ford and Dupont, not a an expressionof his own feelings. Britain got net present hundreds of billions in value from the US during the war that was never paid back
As usually, you were clear and concise, showing the sources you accessed for your presentation, and getting to the point with a brief explanation. As usually, you did a great job.
the factor I have been obsessed with lately is war production. It's simply amazing how much war production in the US and in England contributed to the allies win
Actually in the mud season and snow season having so many horses was actually an advantage then a disadvantage. The roads in Russia were so bad, often not paved that trucks were not usable at all. Without horses the German army would have starved to death on the Eastern Front in 1941/42
That took 4 years and 20 million lives [?] . It took Germany 1/2 million casualties and 2 years of fighting to take all of Europe most of western Russia.
Wow. I have read countless books, watched hundreds of documentaries and seen videos about WW2. I haven't seen new information or perspectives in a long time. This channel is the first to provide to me new facts, information and perspective in years!!! Great videos, great channel!
I would actually like to see an episode on why the French military collapse so rapidly, the role of Charles Degaule's book and the difference in equipment between the German and the French army.
It's pretty widely known, the French (and British) assumed the main attack would come through the north because they assumed that the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable to armored columns and get caught in a trap; also French tanks were scattered among their infantry divisions rather than being concentrated in forward-pressing columns.
@Audioventura the primary cause for Frances defeat was that they had no reserve divisions, all their divisions were deployed to the front line, the French could not react or reinforce breaching areas such as the Arden forest. As for tanks the French actually had many very good and reliable tanks.The German tanks at the beginning of the war could be seen as inferior in many ways. France and the allies never took advantage of their armor tactically to put it plainly. The generals had no idea what to do with these armored units in terms of tactics.
1) The presumption the Germans would drive through the Ardennes and into the Maginot Line. 2) France did not see any significant progress or boom post-WW1. In fact, they had a near 20 year depression of society, politics and economics. They just could not rebuild fast enough in personnel, and the idea of another possibility of a World War absolutely sickened the public. 3) France ALSO believe the British were "forcing" them into a war they didn't want to fight. Philipe Petain was one of the many who felt that this was not their war, and pushed for a ceasefire and surrender to the Germans before they had the possibility of destroying Paris. 4) Germany had good leadership that was capable of thinking outside the box. More importantly, many situations in which, like Rommel, conducting daring, incredibly stupid, yet effective maneuvers that caused chaos and confusion for the Allies. 5) Just not mentally prepared for another war in general. There's deeper logistical, tactical, strategic and technological points (including radio communications improvements in German Armor as opposed to French Armor units) that would make people wonder how such a small military managed to overwhelm and defeat a much larger, allied force. At its core: Speed, Surprise, Violence of Execution.
So the Sickle-Cut, where the Germans successfully went from the Ardennes and Sedan all the way up to the Channel, created an incredibly bad strategic position for the French, British and Belgians. Their plan had been to put their best forces in Belgium, digging in at the Meuse - in anticipation that the main German attack would mirror that of the Schlieffen plan in 1914. This left the best Allied troops cut off in Belgium, and in positions they hadn't even been in for very long. It is important to note that the Belgians did not allow the French and British until the Germans actually invaded them. This was obviously a disaster, but it was not necessarily a fatal one. The Germans would have had a lot of difficulty actually closing out the pocket that now existed in Belgium, and their control of the "cordon" in France was not rock-solid. However, the psychological effect on the French was devastating. The French right-wing, which overlapped significantly (though not totally) with High Command, effectively gave up the fight. A lot of them (explicitly) preferred the anti-communist Germans to the French left-wing, who had power in France. The 1930s in France had been incredibly divisive in the Left wing-Right wing fight. Consider the situation in 1914: the French elite were determined to fight on, even when the Germans were knocking at the door of Paris. The whole republic fought hard for 5 years to beat the Germans. The exhaustion from WWI definitely contributed to the psychological state of the military in 1940, but with a firmer leadership and less political division, the French could have fought on in 1940. Now they may still have eventually lost, but it would have cost the Germans a lot more - and would have definitely altered the course of the war.
"Germany and Japan had a lot of shortages, except when it came to enemies; they were plenty of those around" WW2 in a nutshell everyone, 2(3 and its allies) fanatic nations declaring war against the world and thinking they'll win.
@@yeatnumber1Dmuncher ah sorry must been HOI4 memory mingling😂 but seriously i thought they did just that you know like soviets left japan to usa to deal with in order to get their siberian troops west to kick some german ass which they did
I’m reminded of the story, certainly apocryphal, of a little child in Germany during World War II, being shown a map of the world. The parent pointed out where Germany, Italy and Japan were, and then pointed to all the countries that the axis was at war with, so many more large countries, all over the globe. The child just stares a moment, and says to the parent, “has Hitler seen this map ?”
"Fly to live, do or die..." Normally I wouldn't think otherwise, but putting them together like that makes me think you went for an Aces High - Iron Maiden reference.
Great analysis. I am 82. I grew up seeing mostly US films which gave a very distorted view of everything. My dad served as a combat engineering officer with the 3rd army in Europe. He also had a view that was very limited to his own experiences, but I trusted his view as an expert.
One comment about pilots and experience-in the skies of occupied Europe, German pilots were over friendly (to them) territory and could bail out or crash-land and be back in the air the next day. They could be shot down mulitiple times and keep on flying, gaining experience and accumulating kills. An Allied pilot who didn't get out of German airspace for any reason-whether he was shot down, had mechanical trouble or ran out of fuel-would most likely end up as a prisioner. An Allied pilot's first bad day could be the end of the war for him. The Battle of Britain was exactly the opposite-the RAF pilots had the home advantage.
Very true, but the #1 advantage (IMO) that the British had was radar. Had the Germans focused on destroying the chain home system & the airfields, & NOT hitting cities, the outcome of the BoB would've been much different!
@@stevebrownrocks6376 Even then, it wouldn't have been that much different. Many RAF bases were outside the flight range of German planes. If the RAF got really desperate, they could order their planes to be based at these out-of-range airfields. The planes could fly into combat anytime the radar stations saw anything coming across the Channel, but the airfields would be safe.
Thomas Saldana true, but without the radar the outnumbered fighters wouldn't have stood a chance. I don't think the Germans would've been able to defeat & occupy GB either way, unless GB totally surrendered.
@@stevebrownrocks6376 If this, if that, the Germans could maybe have defeated the RAF. But then what? There was no way they were going to invade Britain in the near term. And only in the long term if they could defeat the Royal Navy. Which they could not. Nor were they ever even close to defeating the Russians. From the moment they invaded Poland stalemate with control of Western Europe (excluding Britain) was Germany's best case scenario.
After watching this, my thoughts about the single biggest mistake made by the German High Command is not the decision to push forward with Barbarossa, but the decision to push the British too far. And not because I'm British, but because it meant that Germany's military assets and resources had to be divided and in some cases stuck in drawn out campaigns of attrition.
I think Hitler hoped/believed that the British would negotiate a settlement, and when they didn't, realized he had to knock the Soviets out of the war before the U.S. had a chance to militarize its economy and use Britain as a base from which to project its strength into continental Europe (Hitler wrote I believe as early as 1926 Mein Kampf that the U.S. would always come to the British side eventually just like in World War One).
their biggest mistake was that they assumed too much. They assumed poland would be given up by the allies, they assumed britain wouldnt want to fight a war, they assumed soviet union will fall in 0.3 second after the invasion, etc. Altho it's pretty understandable considering that they were given austria and czechoslovakia for free
@@benismann Well Austria joined pretty much voluntarily and yes assumptions were made (the British estimated the Germans would defeat the Soviets faster than the Germans did btw).
@@watching99134 it doesn't matter what Austria or austrians say tho, what matters is if the big powers agree. And they did. And allies making false assumptions is nowhere near as bad considering how much resources, time and space they have
i've enjoyed your videos for quite a while for their attention to detail. well thought out graphics, and ability to cover complex subjects in an approachable manner. I have pushed the like button on many of these videos for those reasons, however this is the first time I have wished for a love button. Your use of humor, from the bronies comment to the "If you don't have a hammer...." remark, was brilliant and added much to the video.
Excellent review. Very enlightening. There are so many tv shows and other commentaries which are careless and inaccurate with their comments. One example is that RAF was on verge of collapse in Battle of Britain. It simply adds drama to some other point in the show but then becomes conventional wisdom. I’m afraid American shows are the most inaccurate. Loose lips not only sink ships but cause widespread lack of real understanding. I truly respect and enjoy your work.
Minor correction regarding the Me 262: you know full well that when people say it was 'too late', they're not talking about the plane's combat readiness, they mean that by the time it was made operational, Germany had already lost the war (granted, you could say that Germany lost the war the moment they opened a second front by attacking the USSR - they just couldn't fight a total war on two fronts) - it was just a matter of how long it would take them to lose and how much territory would be taken by either the western Allies or the Soviets.
To be fair, they really weren't fighting a total war on two fronts. They were fighting an air war on two fronts but they were completely wiping out their enemies on one front and generally winning on the other until reinforcements arrived and they had to end the campaign in the West. Remember that for Germany they really didn't have a second front until the invasion of Italy. The war in Africa was generally very small and also definitely not a total war.
Some of those horses came in handy when the 6th Army was trapped in front of Stalingrad. Seriously, this is well researched and presented. You are to be commended for excellent work.
Well he has credible sources to back up his argument and you didn't refute anything in particular. I've also studied some of these things on my own time and at university and he's pretty spot on from what I can tell, so I don't know what you're talking about.
But his "facts" are still subjective. The snow and cold -30 degree temperatures did impact upon the dynamic effectiveness of the germans more than the statically defending Russians. Had Germans prepared to invade Britain first in 1941 instead of diverting a significant part of their forces to invade Russia they could have successfully invaded Britain. But there was a fundamental impairment of judgement by deciding to invade Russia ( probably based upon an arrogance of racial superiority) as it created a war on 2 fronts. That decision was probably the single greatest contributor to the war outcome favouring an eventual allied victory.
probably, since Aces High was the first Heavy Metal song I ever heard live on the Ed Hunter Tour in Stuttgart (Germany) September 1999 if I remember correctly :)
The biggest surprise of my WWII reading was when I bought a used book about the invasion of Russia for $1. Before that, I was only interested in the European side of the war. Afterwards I realized I had missed the most important part of the war against Germany.
eastern front is also european... moscow uses "the west" as a scapegoat despite knowing they too are western, and the anglo world eats it up. as an actual easterner it is obvious to see that the anglo and the moscowite are brothers, despite the mostly fake rivalry.
@@abbcc5996 The point the OP was making was that he was only familiar with the Western aspect of the European theater, no need to go looking for annoying points to make.
If the Germans had won air superiority, wouldn't it have been irrelevant that they didn't have naval superiority? I mean it was my understanding that the ultimate goal of the air campaign over Britain was to literally gain the upper hand over the Royal Navy, so that they could have efficiently bombed any ships attempting to defend the British Isles from an amphibious invasion.
Yes and no. Royal navy was huge and launching an amphibous operation just a few months before winter would had been risky. Espicially with Germanys low capacity to transport troops and supplies across the channel. But one cannot rule out the possibility of a succesful invasion in 1940 if they had good air cover and made a surprise attack, but the possibility seems very unlikely to me. The invasion of Norway the same year had also been costly for the German navy. But with air superior in 1941, Focke Wulf fighters, the italian and VIchy navy I think the odds could had been somewhat better. But on the other hand would Britain probably had prepared better defences along the coasts, reinforced the island with colonial troops, trained more men, and built more tanks.. so its hard to know.
Long story short? Nah. The Brits basically had a fleet bigger than the Kriegsmarine in the channel itself. And that's before the _entire rest_ of the Royal Navy get told to drop their shit and get their asses home *"Yesterday!"* Or, if you want a better take on the subject and don't mind reading: overlord-wot.blogspot.si/2015/07/operation-sealion.html
What would they of bombed the ships with? Stukas were pretty shitty dive bombers. Also the Germans had zero experience concerning destroying ships with aircraft.
+ComradeSulomon Are you not aware that the Luftwaffe also took part in the German anti-shipping operations in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean? Dornier Do 217 was one of the aircraft they used in that role. One of those sank a battleship, in fact.
Kristian Kumpula The 217 was in its infancy, or even nonexistant in time for any decent attempt at Sea Lion, while the battleship-sinkage was with a guided bomb, considerably later in the war. Probably a fair amount of luck, too. Within the time frame, they apparently didn't even had proper AP bombs.
This historian really is great. Keep up the good work. I've done a history degree and have an understanding of the issues but you dig into it so well and concisely revealing the truth behind myth. Well done.
thank you, be sure to check out my newer videos, because this was is rather dated (late 2016 if I remember correctly), since then I think I got a bit better.
I think one of the biggest successes of strategic bombing was, that the germans had to react. They had to protect important areas with FLAK and AA guns, they had to build up successes and radar stations, they had to keep planes at home as interceptors and they had to redeploy a huge part of their industry. Without a single bomb hitting a target that makes a huge difference. Industry capacity that was needed in so many areas was occupied by the strategic bombing.
Maybe but then again Germany peaked production output in 1944... so it’s very complex. Maybe Germany‘s output would have been smaller if the bombing didn’t make them so nervous about possible impact. And Churchill after Dresden clearly addresses that the British have to stop terror bombing under false pretense of trying to hit industry. He was very well aware that the bombing wasn’t doing anything substantial to the industry and as said in this video some small effective operations against Ploesti and some specialized factories did most of the damage. Germany didn’t lack industrial capacity or train routes, they only lacked oil, materials and some specialized parts
The Me262 worked in its absence. One photo reconisance Mosquito was chased by a plane he did not know about. He did know that no plane should be able to get that close to him. However, he dodged and the experience was part of his debrief. The next photo recce which went missing was chalked up to this new fighter. Then it got a reputation. So, whether it was there or not, beware! Good of you to put up the facts.
0:50 Actually the word "Blitzkrieg" comes from an article written by Guderian in 1938, in which he talks about how a country with inferior manpower and resources but with a more disciplined and organised army can defeat a superior enemy force in small time. Also, three plans were considered for the campaign in the west: One, a repetition of the 1914 plan, another a single strike towards the Maginot line and, the third one, a trap with three army groups (A, B, C) whose tasks were: -Attacking through Belgium and Netherlands (group A). -Encircling the incoming British and French forces in the Ardennes (group B). -Avoiding enemy strikes from the south to line Sigfrid (group C). This plan was the one executed, and can be counted as blitzkrieg since it followed the instructions given by Guderian.
Well France alone had just half of Germany’s GDP and population and 1/3 of Germany’s industrial capacity in 1940.You are talking about combined power of enemy probably.
Excellent. I liked and subscribed. I was born in 1943 and my father was in the British Royal Navy. I have been fascinated by the history of WW2, first as a boy by the war movies made during and just after the war, and then as an adult by the later releases of declassified information. I read Winston Churchill’s history, The Second World War, which contained a lot of detail, but was very one-sided (and self-promoting). I am very hungry for the details from a German viewpoint. I would love to read a similar history by a German historian of the same vintage.
First time in my life I see a list of top whatever, I agree with the importance of everything mentioned, and I even share the point of view presented. That feels really scary... What's wrong with me, or him? Are we both going crazy?
I LOVE LOVE LOVE ALL THE unique glyphs you use. "baby strategic Bomb" brilliant. so many have uses outside this fine historical edifice. be nice if there was an attributed collection
well, I basically made the list after I saw a video that stated "blitzkrieg tactics" were used... then I sent it to Justin (Navy Chat) and he agreed. Also a lot of that stuff came up in the comment section again and again, additionally quite many of those I believed at certain points in my life too, some is from bad documentaries, some from dated research and others due to political reasons.
That is a great piece, not only are you correct, but most of those are actually widely held misconceptions. Quite often internet experts manufacture positions to counter that no well read person holds. But many of the positions you counter here are "common knowledge" . I have trouble with your point on intelligence, but if it was stated that the allies did not win the war WITH intelligence but by USING intelligence I would concede it. Very well done.
A great video. From a personal stand point I consider the claims of the superiority of German Armour and the ineffectiveness of Allied Armour to be one of the greatest misconceptions of the second world war. But that's a personal issues I've been talking to people about for a long while.
The British had a knack for producing unreliable designs; it would made MAN engineers blush :D Fortunately for them, they had some good designs here and there. The Valentine, for example.
@@VRichardsn Ironically, the Valentine didn't see that much action in British service after North Africa, and saw far more action on the Eastern Front in Soviet service. Although it was a bit undergunned for their tastes, it was extensively used as a training vehicle for Soviet tankers, and in secondary theatres, where the relatively poor armament wasn't such an issue
@@Xenonfastfall crusaders weren't useless, well some of the early ones were unreliable but once that issue was fixed if it was a solid tank, it was the early war tank doctrine that was terrible, once that doctrine was replaced they performed just as well as any contemporary tank
One of the map based wargame companies published a recreation of Operation Sea Lion they admitted to having to include non-historical elements in order to give the German player any chance of winning.
Strategic bombing was especially ineffective when it focused on civilian targets instead of military targets (included all the fuel/transportation infrastructure).
I learned much watching your very well executed videos even though I am 70ys old, and, have seen many documentaries on WW2, as well as first hand accounts from the Veterans..
Biggest WWII misconception that I've seen: The Soviets were good guys because they fought Nazis. People who believe that simply haven't read the history. The Red Army was happy to murder and rape innocent people who happened to be between them and Hitler. There have also been records that indicate that they sometimes killed Nazi soldiers who had already surrendered, sometimes even just for fun. I remember watching a video about a Russian war vet talking in great detail about one of the horrors he saw his comrades do to two young girls... Skies above, I wish people hated the Soviet Union's legacy as much as they should.
The Soviets were the lesser evil because they defeated the Nazis. At least Estonians, Latvians, Ukrainians and Polish people are still a thing. If Germany had won and implemented Generalplan Ost, all those ethnic groups would've been largely exterminated.
@@romanbarna1316 there was ethnic cleansing and forced displacement in those same countries by the Soviet regime, so not a good argument. Compare statistics before and after Communism and you will see the difference, as many were killed and their lands resettled by Russians. Maybe they would have been wiped out by the Nazis but History doesn't judge possibilities, only what actually happened
'History doesn't judge possibilities'. Eh, no. Historians constantly take into considerations possibilities. You're not really familiar with historiography, are you? If Nazi Germany had won, they were planning on exterminating pretty much all of Eastern Europe. That makes the Soviets, Americans and British the lesser evil, unless you have some twisted interpretation of good and evil.
Oh gee i sure believe that is worse than systematically exterminating entire peoples. You see, to the soviets this was a war of survival, not some conflict on the other side of the world where you send your young men to die in, as did the US. On top of that, they had just come out of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history (the collapse of tzarist russia), which cost an estimated 20 million people their lives. Preceding that was WW1. My point is, the soviet people werent coming out of some void into WW2. These were people who were very accustomed to brutality and cruelty. The soviet regime, even with all its cruelty was miles better than what came before. This perspective only changed in the 60s-70s when new generations who hadnt seen war were born in the USSR and started questioning the soviet regime.
Correct about Germany's lack of an amphibious warfare capability. This was hard won by the Allies, with Gallipoli in WW1, The Dieppe raid, Operation Torch (North Africa), Ironclad (Madagascar), Sicily, Selerno on the Italian mainland, as well as the US island hopping campaign in the Pacific from Guadalcanal to the Japanese southern islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa...all before the June 6th 1944 Operation Overlord - Normandy landings. The Boche had none of this and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in 1940 couldn't back it up anything like the Allied air and naval power from 1943 onward. Operation Sealion - the invasion of England would have made the Gallipoli fiasco look like a success.
That was very interesting, thanks! You mentioned the Axis was not a proper alliance, and indeed it wasn't. One wonders what might have happened if Germany had allowed it's allies to build Bf 109 or FW 190 fighters, Pzkw IV and later tanks under licence as well as allowing them to continue with their own research and allow for interoperability? By way of contrast, think if the P-51 with the Merlin engine, co-operation in the Battle of the Atlantic and so on.
Doesn't mean he is necessarily correct mind you. Sources lend credibility to an argument for sure, but doesn't mean he is factually correct. There are a few points I'd disagree with.
I think your comment about Bliztkriege not being planned is lacking a broader perspecitve. Germany, and Prussia before it really focused on quick wars to knock out an opponent. This is highlighted in the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, and the doctrine of Schwerpunkt. This is what they wanted to do at the start of the Great War. I do see a point though that the label is newer, but the conecpt was in the German Army's DNA for a long time.
yes, but the main issue is that most people that throw around Blitzkrieg never heard of the Franco-Prussian War let alone "Schwerpunkt". They are usually "Blitzkrieg tactics" by "nazis"... Mobility was very central in German/Prussian doctrine, but this also means "Blitzkrieg" wasn't something new. Of course, there is also a difference between operational and strategically.
Absolutely. I'm a big fan of the era after visiting the French Army museum in Les Invalides, Pairs. It really opened my eyes to seeing how much tactics of WW1 was the result of a gradual evolution out of the late 19th century.
Have you ever made a video about Stukas? I think they are very interesting planes but I cant really find a lot about their actual effectivnes. I can only guess they were good from how long they were used but I want numbers.
They were old, under performing and slated for replacement BEFORE the war started. But they never were replaced - I think it was a political decision as much as a time and money one. Still when Germany had air superiority the planes was useful - but in an even fight like the Battle of Britain the Stuka showed its age, and had to be heavily escorted, later even withdrawn.
tommy14 not sure if accurate but i heard that Goering LOVED stukas, which is one reason they kept being used. also why he demanded fighters protect them at all costs during the BoB which meant flying slow and being targets for hurricanes.
I read a book over 10 years ago entitled "Divebomber!" and the author goes into the history of dive bombing and how it was a lot more accurate than horizontal bombing. The author is very detail-oriented right down to the tail numbers on the planes, when he can find them, so if you want numbers, you can get them if you want. It is a rather dry book, as many history books are, but it also has some very interesting stories hidden in it too, which makes the drudgery worthwhile. Sorry I don't recall the author's name.
The Stuka, a purpose built Dive Bomber, was a product of the nineteen thirties, but dovetailed with a purpose perfect for its strengths. It was meant to operate near the front, in rough conditions, to carry heavy loads, and to deliver munitions with great accuracy-for aircraft, that is. The oversize, perforated, Junkers flaps gave it good take off and landing qualities and its old fashioned fixed spatted, landing gear was incredibly strong and highly resistant to all kinds of damage-unlike the retracting gear of most other war planes of the time. The Stuka often had two twenty millimeter cannon facing forward from the "kink" in the wing, and one or two rifle caliber machine guns in the rear of the cockpit. Different models carried ever increasing amounts of "dumb" bombs , though a common load in the "old" days was a single 500kg Bomb on the center yoke, and one 125kg bomb under each wing. By the "D" model, more than 2100 kg of stores could be carried. Stuka was large, lumbering, and slow, in the air, like any other tactical support plane when loaded down with munitions. Once empty of bombs, however, pilots reported it a responsive, maneuverable, pleasure to fly. It was neither meant to be fast, nor was it meant to pull aerobatics other than its intended dive on an almost vertical plane. For putting a single bomb where it can do the most good, the Stuka is probably the best purpose built airplane ever devised. The stresses of pulling out of the dive amounted to around 12G deceleration (when your guts are trying to force themselves out through your butt) at which point many pilots might pass out briefly. This was understood by designers, who automated the dive and pull out so that the pilot could struggle back to his senses after the run. Some were used to strafe enemy ground troops and columns of vehicles, horses, and men. For these there was an add-on kit comprising two underwing machine gun packs (7.9mm MG34) pf six guns each, for a total count of twelve 7.9mm machine guns plus two twenty millimeter cannon. It was an unholy terror. Naturally, like the Sturmovik and the Pe-2 when used for close support, losses were proportionately high among Stuka units. You were, after all, diving straight down the enemy's sights. Early versions had 900 or 1000hp engines. The final evolved variant was the 1750hp powered G series Tank Buster. This had two 37mm autocannon (3.7cmBK), in pods, one under each wing. 6500 Stukas were built. Like all other tactical bombing aircraft, they are intended only for scenarios where the owning force can establish temporary Air Superiority or total Air Supremacy first. Otherwise they're just bait for enemy interceptors. Their decline was the decline of the Luftwaffe, for there is always need for such aircraft in an advancing army.
I am going to break a lance in defense of the Stukas. I honestly think they were not underperforming. In fact, I believe they were great support aircrafts, and arguably the best dive bomber ever built. Their Achilles heel was its glaring vulnerability... but that is a given, since that type of aircraft is _meant_ to be operating with air cover. Any bomber is going to suffer without fighter cover, be it an Il-2, an SBD, a Blackburn Skua... your pick.
Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. "Hay Hans! What do you want: Bullets or long underwear?" Is this the truth about the eastern front?
Much like the evolution of the BEF in 1914 to the Conscription Army of 1918, the British Army by 1945 was a very different beast to the one in 1939 that's for certain. I think one the biggest misconceptions of the War was that France simply surrendered in 1940 actually.
Another misconception being that air power - particularly fighter bombers (eg thunderbolt and typhoon) destroyed tanks and we're effective at doing that.
@@hhs_leviathan the IL 2 and the hs 129 are designed specifically (or could be properly modified) for that role The il 2 with its PTAB and the Hs with its bigger gun Chieftain himself has explained this is one of his videos regarding airpower vs armor
Squirrel is pronounced very differently in British and American English, so which one do you want? I would think most Germans would prefer the British pronunciation.
@@Nimmermaer This may depend on what part of America. Which accent. I was curious about what you said, so I just watched a video on how to pronounce squirrel in British-English. It's exactly how I pronounce it. (Midwest/western American accent). th-cam.com/video/mGyWifMrDsA/w-d-xo.html
@@Nimmermaer - As a Brit, I can confirm that there is a difference. US pronunciation is more like 'Skwirl', UK pronounciation has more emphasis on the final 'rel'
+Darth Mortus Calvary and Golgotha are synonymous, with Golgotha originating from Aramaic for "The skull-pan of a head" and Calvary from Latin "Calvariæ Locus" which, in essence, means the same thing.
KoRn Fan on Ketami - Well you can go post that on TH-cam or you can do some research and learn history. He was an historical figure. You can decide for yourself if He was who He claimed to be, but your assertion that He was just a fairy tale is, well, a fairy tail.
2windswords really bruv because there are no records of a Jesus of Nazareth not Christ the word Christ is a title but he is not recorded on any documents or books besides the Bible AND there is no record of a town by the name of Nazareth until the 2nd century around the time the New Testament was written seems a little convenient for me.
This is the first time I've run across Military History Visualized videos. It is refreshing to see a completely content-driven and thoroughly researched documentary. The producer completely blows off flashy visuals and slick-sounding narration in favor of measurable evidence. For me, the great joy of history is seeing a single event from many points of view. The differences in those accounts teach me more than any single story. Errors, remorse, justifications, conceits, strategic goals. financial pressures, religious doctrines, applied tactics, and more teach me about the human condition. While I still enjoy the WWII combat footage, I will also look for Military History Visualized perspectives.
Hello, there! I had a few thoughts concerning your reasoning why Operation Sealion couldn't have been a success. Note: This is all speculation that I came up with on the fly, just a big "what if.." and "could it have been...". First of all, you keep mentioning the US. But if you assume that Operation Sealion had started before the entry of the US into the war you could take their forces and maybe even their military experience out of the caculation. Although I think it's very likely that the US would have entered the war immediately on the day the first german soldier set foot on english soil. Concerning the argument that it took the allies years to prepare for the D-Day landings I thought of a few potential counter-arguments: 1) I assume that Operation Sealion would have been much smaller in scale than the actual D-Day landings 2) I also assume that the british home defence was not as formidable as the german defences along the french coast 3) I'd attribute superior planning capabilities to the german high command as opposed to the Allies which overlaps a bit with 4) The allies had to bring forces from all over the world to Britain for the D-Day landings and coordinate that multinational and even multilingual force which the Germans would not have had to 5) Psycological argument: I think the allies were more scared of the germans than the other way round knowing (or assuming) that the german forces would always be able to severely punish them for making mistakes in their battle plans Additionally, had the germans been more decisive (or ruthless) at Dunkirk, I conclude that it might have been possible for the Germans to very quickly and successfully make the plans for Operation Sealion right after the Fall of France pushing the advantage they had at that point in the war. Perhaps a small, but elite paratrooper detachment could have established and held a bridgehead on the southern coast of England? Thanks for (hopefully) not discarding my thoughts as utter trash. :-) Beste Grüße aus der Rhön, mach weiter so!
Could Germany land troops on the British islands? Sure. But the largest concern for me is: How do you supply them? A German division would need 400 tonnes of supplies each day just in order to be fit for fight. How do you get that amount in when the royal navy would send any supply ship to the bottom of the sea? And supplying them by air doesn't seem realistic either, especially not after the heavy losses of transport planes during the invasion of Holland and if the RAF hasn't been destoyed. Plus there is a problem with autumn weather.
I'm not sure about that myself. I guess you'd have to bring the absolute minimum number of troops necessary to establish and hold a bridgehead. Could that have been done with way less than a full division? Would it be feasible to support those few just by "living off the land", i.e. capturing enemy supplies and equipment and occasionally dropping supplies from the air maybe at night time only? I know this sounds more like a weird commando operation than a sound battleplan. But if it could have been done in one place it would work in another. Also the british navy and RAF do need supplies as well. Could targeting those - maybe supported by strategic bombing and submarine activities - have allowed for bringing in supplies from Germany to Britain in a growing amount over time? Your point about autumn weather I didn't understand.
Why the brits had more ships in the Mediterranean fleet than in the Home fleet?Maybe because in the Mediterranean sea they had to face a more larger fleet than the Kriegsmarine.......
I think the Home Fleet had far more small ships like wooden torpedo boats. Thats why the difference in destroyers. And RN still had a huge advantage over the Germans.
Zanzao-1 Ps3 Regia Marine was a far more formidable and a worthy opponent than Kriegsmarine. They had about 7 capital ships iirc, various heavy cruiser of good quality and far better and numerous destroyers than what Germany had.
Karahan Keskin I know, if Italy had the radar(like the british)and at least an aircraft carrier(that was started building in 1941) it would make a huge difference in the war....
Besides the Italian Fleet, in the time of the Sea Lion there was also the French fleet, which the British had to worry about until Oran. 2 major fleets compared to the weak German fleet. And then the Spanish Fleet was a possibility also and had to be watched. It is not surprising that the Med fleet was bigger. Also, Gibraltar was in the Med, but easily switchable to the Home fleet as needed - as is seen in the Bismark chase.
8:01 I think it's worth noting the amount of training hours here. From 1939 to 1942 UK pilots had around 200 hours of training, while German pilots had around 240. By 1943 however, this changed dramatically, with German pilots having around 205 hours of training while UK pilots had 340 hours, which stayed the same till 1944, by which point German pilots had only 170 hours of training
The difference between operation sealing and D-day were many ....when sealion was mooted it was a planned attack against a nation without a army (after Dunkirk ) ....whereas D-day was against a well prepared , dug in defensive army !!
Yes this makes a huge difference in terms of needed preparation. Also the Western Allies were under more pressure to minimize their casualties, so had to do more preparation. (It's also possible they delayed a year in order to allow the fascists and communists to continue killing each other on the Eastern Front in large numbers, making the postwar world easier to capitalists to dominate).
@@bozo5632 The Germans had assembled many hundreds of civilian craft (similar to the Dunkirk evacuation in reverse) and were starting to build landing craft (although it may have been a ruse to detract Stalin away from preparations to invade the USSR).
@@watching99134 I'm not sure they did have enough boats to launch (and then sustain) an invasion. And building more boats would give Britain time to prepare defenses. But I mostly meant naval power. I don't think the kriegsmarine would have been much use in a pitched naval battle anywhere, especially not in the narrow (and shallow) English Channel (where submarines are vulnerable); and I don't think the Luftwaffe could have been useful to an invasion landing elsewhere away from the channel. Germany needed to effectively destroy either the RAF or the Navy in advance of any invasion, and neither of those seems very possible.
The British army still had 1 million active soldiers at that point and growing, there were equipment issues but there were still easily enough equipped soldiers to fight off the minimal light infantry that the Germans could potentially send across the channel, on top of that defences were very quickly being constructed, not that that mattered though because the royal navy was easily enough of a defence in itself
man, love your videos! they are very objective and full of useful information, always proved by real facts. I am glad that I found your channel! keep up the great work!
It was good, but it's often over-exaggerated. Nazi Germany army was often depicted as being space-age when in reality the technological gap is much closer, in a way, the Allied does have some equipment that's considered more advance than Germany fielded.
Trevor Dupey did a study comparing the AVERAGE of the countries combat effectiveness. He found the Germans were 10% better than western troops, and more than 2x the effectiveness of Russian. Of course, that is average - individual divisions varied quite a bit. And other Axis contries were worse than the western Allies, although still better then the Russians.
DOSRetroGamer It aint, its just the Quality of troops declined throughout the years, from elite shock troops in poland and france, to the hitler youth in 44' - 45'
Not a misconception but rather misinformation. German troops were no better nor worse then the western powers BUT far superior in unit tactics. Note unit not division not strategic, unit. It comes down to auftragstaktik.
Now in this thread we agree, unlike in the Stukas one. Their reliance on independent thinking NCOs and Officers, their small unit tactics and the use of their support weapons (MG 34s and 42s, I am looking at you) were some of the factors.
It was very finely balanced. The capture of U-559 was the biggest turning point as I see it, but wars are very complex, and my education is probably Brit-centric.
The British class system in action,chaps from the right crowd and no crowding to be the only ones to fly,one well known Pilot who nearly married into Royalty wrote how the were annoyed at the introduction of the Sargent fighter Pilot,he did add that by 1942 all of that nonsense had been knocked out of the way.
I must admit I had minimal interest in hearing the German perspective on these battles and this conflict. But I do find the points you make both interesting and credible. I wondered if your interest in military history was solely on the World Wars or if there are other conflicts you have a particular interest in? I am in the early stages of writing a book about the American Civil War.
@@watching99134 So was Hitler. I don't see any significant difference between being Austrian and German. Ethnicity, culturally, linguistically and historically entwined.
I still think the top misconception is that the Germans were 'soooo technically advanced compared to the allies with lots of wonderweapons if only they had more time'. How many people realise a VT shell for the 88/128s would have racked up much more bomber kills compared to even all the Me-262s being used as Galland intended from day one.
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, considering supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/
I have a rare book to send you... where would i send it to get it to you?
thank you, can you go to the about section and click on the email reveal and drop me a mail please?
I'm still not convinced about barbarossa, i can quote german officials about the incompatibility of the wehrmacht facing winter warfare, and that the winter caused barbarossa to fail.
Military History Visualized BUT ITS EdUcaTioNaL
Capitalism. Destroying good things since day one.
hehe, bronies
:)
wow, 2 war channel meet up?
may i hoping for a collaboration? XD
Collab with 'the great war' would be awesome
that moment when you see a channel you enjoy, commenting on a video from another channel you enjoy.
Wow, I follow both of your videos :)
Germany in 1940: Okay, so we need to prepare for a decades-long war for France
Germany in 1941: Russia will collapse in a matter of weeks, right?
Ben Hamilton
Seems that overestimating your enemy makes you fare better.
+AI of course, you try harder/don't get too proud
Ben Hamilton kek
How much did the rapid collapse of the French military lead to the German belief that Russia would also collapse?
Hitler believed his own propaganda about the superiority of German troops.
0:10 Blitzkrieg
0:49 Mecanized German Army
2:05 Battle of Britain
2:45 Operation Sealion
4:01 The US was neutral towards the war in europe
5:01 The Me 262 was too late
5:58 Strategic Bombing was useless
7:05 German Aces were better
8:14 Barbarossa failed due it being delayed
9:50 The axis was an alliance
10:16 Military intelligence won the war
The British and Americans defeated the Nazis. Soviet Russia won the war.
@@nicholasjones7312 how do you figure that?
@@adzthesaint i’m guessing he saying that the idea that the British and Americans defeated the Nazis by themselves is more of a fallacy. The Soviet union certainly did the most to defeat the Nazis. Even if the CCCP was almost as evil as the Nazis. The Soviets took on most of the German army, and suffered the most casualties.
Complete rewrite of WWII. The tiger tanks and ME 262 came too late to effect the outcome of the war. As for the strategic bombing, it made it very hard the Nazi to rearm as easily the Allies. The invasion of Russia failed because the Germans had to bail out the Italian in The Balkens in April and May of 1941 which caused the time table to be pushed back to Late June instead late May or early June of 1941. This delay cause the Germans to not have winter clothing available and be caught by the Russian Winter.
The Americans were neutral and more of a hinderance until late 1942
Very interesting video. I was reading "D-Day Through German Eyes" awhile back. There was a comment from a German Officer that had been captured that I found very telling. He was being held at the beach and was watching trucks, jeeps, and other motorized vehicles powering off the landing ships. He kept wondering where are the horses? When he realized there were none, he realized the war was over. It does not get enough attention that horses were still used a lot in the German as well as most of the European armies of the period.
Yes, for Germany it was the Pferd World War.
I have also read that book and remember that comment. I also remember the one by the fellow who was very impressed that we made little effort to fix damaged vehicles, we just rolled another one out of the motor pool. And another guy who was surprised we were able to ship in all of our food and water, so we didn't have to live off local produce at all.
@@EdMcF1 Clever.
@@odysseusrex5908 Actually we had good repair capabilities for vehicles, especially armor, keeping vehicles in service, units available. The ones damaged beyond repair or in locations too costly to be retrieved from could be left because of the never ending supply of new.
@@lynnwood7205 That's certainly true. I was just retelling what the German soldiers observed.
For those who may have misunderstood the title, "Eurocentric" means the "European Theater of Operation". The Pacific War was a completely different story and is very well covered in Military History Visualized (MHV).
MHV's and TIK presentations are up-to-date and outstandingly documented and/or referenced. Besides, Mr. Kast (Bernhard) is Austrian (German-speaking native), he can decipher and understand a lot of the original German sources of information. He also works in academia where he has access to a lot of original documentation.
Thank you Mr. Kast for such interesting and informative video productions. I spent my life in the military (28 years), attended the War College (Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, USA) and had to study "lessons learned from WW II" extensively but I have seldom enjoyed lectures that possessed the quality, the illustrations and that stirred up such interest as your video presentations. I wish you could teach military history in NATO higher education facilities (Military schools, colleges, war colleges...).
Again, thank you, Ciao, L Kapitän zur See USN (Ret), Maine, USA.
@lancelot1953: the word "means", which you employ, would probably be better qualified by a term such as 'in this context', since Eurocentric is merely a focus on European politics, culture, history and heritage: it doesn't mean a theatre of operations.
Nice.
First, thanks for your service, second, thanks for your insight into Mr. Kast's identity. I really love his videos and his accent. Thanks to both of you.
@@KeithCooper-Albuquerque Hi Keith, you are welcome. It is nice to read some "civil" and courteous comments on YT. Peace be with you, Ciao, L
@@elrjames7799 The context is the war to begin with, ergo by definition it's primarily referring to operations.
As an English speaking historian, thank you very much for producing these videos! It's great information and I appreciate you working outside your native language to bring it to us!
jet fuel can't melt steel divisions
Dresden was an inside job.
Victor was a Partisan helping the judeo-bolshevik collaborator, Arthur Harris.
paaatreeeck >mfw Roosevelt gave the fireside chat quote on September 11th
Brian Holdren oh oh YES! The alien Anewknocky from the planet Nahbooboo! Also the United Nations armies hiding on the borders of Canada (damn communists!) and Mexico!!!!!!!!!!! Did you know the first "Red Dawn" movie is a TRUE story?!!...and and...lol, that's enough, can't keep up.
Rob Aldridge it's shameful that youre so old posting things like this. Hopefully it's not too late for you to go to your grave while not being totally propagandized, but it's hard to tell.
Buildings don't collapse from jet fuel you dumb old fuck, especially building seven which wasn't even hit you predictable propagandized clown.
"Shermans were completely inadequate and tigers were the best tanks ever" comes to mind.
pfff Shermans was the most produced tank during the entire war
Muh ronson
Watch some war movies and you see which tank that usally wins. (Hint: it isn't the Tiger).
(If you count all versions) the t-34 was actually the most produced tank during the war (50'000 against the m4's 40'000).
Dylan Milne Shermans were awesome tanks but got outdated by 1944. Against Panthers and tigers and even that with fireflys they matched them. And tigers were pretty shit tanks overall. Since they were so unrelieable.
The value of rotating fighter pilots back to teaching positions cannot be underestimated.
FDR wanted to help out the british, the average american just wanted to be out of the depression.
true, since a large majority of the public viewed Germany as a civilized and wonderful nation. It was a difficult job for FDR and the Department of Information's head Robert Horton to convince otherwise
josh slatter Seems like he did both since American workers built the bombs, guns, tanks, and fuel for the Brits.
Carlos Medina bn
Bryce Boepple Nobody was innocent in WWII but saying that the war was for money doesn't make any senes. Great Brtitan had it empire destroyed, the USA aquired so much debt we still haven't recovered, if anything Germany benefited the most economically seeing how after the war the German debt was wiped and as of now it has become the econmic power house of Europe. The USA didn't make back as much money as you would think.
Brian, exactly. Bryce's FDR quote is his critique of Ford and Dupont, not a an expressionof his own feelings. Britain got net present hundreds of billions in value from the US during the war that was never paid back
WW2 history lesson from a German accent is surprisingly refreshing..
He escaped, and Simon Wiesenthal couldn't find him
He says : the mistakes Germany made during WW2
I hear : how I will win the war when I get time travel
_and yes I'm joking_
“Austrian”
@@stephenryder1995 Yes he's been hiding in plain sight lol
@@darthkek1953 That's not funny (yes i'm joking too)
As usually, you were clear and concise, showing the sources you accessed for your presentation, and getting to the point with a brief explanation. As usually, you did a great job.
"since that was pretty cold, lets get some hot air, onto politics" LOL!
Transition game harder than Stalingrad horsemeat "rations"
Yeah nice transition 😄
I like your explanations, they show history is made based on many factors, not just one.
excellent observation.
Observation is excellent
Such is life, is it not?
the factor I have been obsessed with lately is war production. It's simply amazing how much war production in the US and in England contributed to the allies win
"With all those horses the Germans were either very heavily under-motorized or a bunch of bronies."
Ha! Okay you get my like and a sub.
Freundschaft ist Magie!
Actually in the mud season and snow season having so many horses was actually an advantage then a disadvantage. The roads in Russia were so bad, often not paved that trucks were not usable at all. Without horses the German army would have starved to death on the Eastern Front in 1941/42
XD but they still managed to take all of western mainland Europe and much of East Europe and almost took Moscow xD
Max Rebhorn and then they got fucking steamrolled.
That took 4 years and 20 million lives [?] . It took Germany 1/2 million casualties and 2 years of fighting to take all of Europe most of western Russia.
Wow. I have read countless books, watched hundreds of documentaries and seen videos about WW2. I haven't seen new information or perspectives in a long time. This channel is the first to provide to me new facts, information and perspective in years!!! Great videos, great channel!
I would actually like to see an episode on why the French military collapse so rapidly, the role of Charles Degaule's book and the difference in equipment between the German and the French army.
It's pretty widely known, the French (and British) assumed the main attack would come through the north because they assumed that the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable to armored columns and get caught in a trap; also French tanks were scattered among their infantry divisions rather than being concentrated in forward-pressing columns.
@Audioventura the primary cause for Frances defeat was that they had no reserve divisions, all their divisions were deployed to the front line, the French could not react or reinforce breaching areas such as the Arden forest. As for tanks the French actually had many very good and reliable tanks.The German tanks at the beginning of the war could be seen as inferior in many ways. France and the allies never took advantage of their armor tactically to put it plainly. The generals had no idea what to do with these armored units in terms of tactics.
1) The presumption the Germans would drive through the Ardennes and into the Maginot Line.
2) France did not see any significant progress or boom post-WW1. In fact, they had a near 20 year depression of society, politics and economics. They just could not rebuild fast enough in personnel, and the idea of another possibility of a World War absolutely sickened the public.
3) France ALSO believe the British were "forcing" them into a war they didn't want to fight. Philipe Petain was one of the many who felt that this was not their war, and pushed for a ceasefire and surrender to the Germans before they had the possibility of destroying Paris.
4) Germany had good leadership that was capable of thinking outside the box. More importantly, many situations in which, like Rommel, conducting daring, incredibly stupid, yet effective maneuvers that caused chaos and confusion for the Allies.
5) Just not mentally prepared for another war in general.
There's deeper logistical, tactical, strategic and technological points (including radio communications improvements in German Armor as opposed to French Armor units) that would make people wonder how such a small military managed to overwhelm and defeat a much larger, allied force.
At its core: Speed, Surprise, Violence of Execution.
So the Sickle-Cut, where the Germans successfully went from the Ardennes and Sedan all the way up to the Channel, created an incredibly bad strategic position for the French, British and Belgians. Their plan had been to put their best forces in Belgium, digging in at the Meuse - in anticipation that the main German attack would mirror that of the Schlieffen plan in 1914. This left the best Allied troops cut off in Belgium, and in positions they hadn't even been in for very long. It is important to note that the Belgians did not allow the French and British until the Germans actually invaded them.
This was obviously a disaster, but it was not necessarily a fatal one. The Germans would have had a lot of difficulty actually closing out the pocket that now existed in Belgium, and their control of the "cordon" in France was not rock-solid.
However, the psychological effect on the French was devastating. The French right-wing, which overlapped significantly (though not totally) with High Command, effectively gave up the fight. A lot of them (explicitly) preferred the anti-communist Germans to the French left-wing, who had power in France. The 1930s in France had been incredibly divisive in the Left wing-Right wing fight.
Consider the situation in 1914: the French elite were determined to fight on, even when the Germans were knocking at the door of Paris. The whole republic fought hard for 5 years to beat the Germans. The exhaustion from WWI definitely contributed to the psychological state of the military in 1940, but with a firmer leadership and less political division, the French could have fought on in 1940.
Now they may still have eventually lost, but it would have cost the Germans a lot more - and would have definitely altered the course of the war.
Even though you do not know how to spell, if you know how to read, you easily can find out.
"Germany and Japan had a lot of shortages, except when it came to enemies; they were plenty of those around"
WW2 in a nutshell everyone, 2(3 and its allies) fanatic nations declaring war against the world and thinking they'll win.
Japan was frickin nuts attackin china,USSR,britain and USA at the same time they were on sicko mode bro
@@akiamini4006 they had border raids with the USSR, but they didn't declare war on them
@@yeatnumber1Dmuncher ah sorry must been HOI4 memory mingling😂 but seriously i thought they did just that you know like soviets left japan to usa to deal with in order to get their siberian troops west to kick some german ass which they did
@@akiamini4006 yeah the soviet-japanese non aggression pact freed up a lot of siberian troops. Japan kinda threw Germany under the bus lol
I’m reminded of the story, certainly apocryphal, of a little child in Germany during World War II, being shown a map of the world. The parent pointed out where Germany, Italy and Japan were, and then pointed to all the countries that the axis was at war with, so many more large countries, all over the globe. The child just stares a moment, and says to the parent, “has Hitler seen this map ?”
"Fly to live, do or die..." Normally I wouldn't think otherwise, but putting them together like that makes me think you went for an Aces High - Iron Maiden reference.
;)
Up the Irons!
You're referencing all of my favourite things! I'm now waiting for a Harry Potter reference.
Great analysis. I am 82. I grew up seeing mostly US films which gave a very distorted view of everything. My dad served as a combat engineering officer with the 3rd army in Europe. He also had a view that was very limited to his own experiences, but I trusted his view as an expert.
Thank you!
4:00 A large german army helmet, a marine anchor, and a pacifier, that is the most apt icon i've ever seen. really good job (No amphibius experience).
One comment about pilots and experience-in the skies of occupied Europe, German pilots were over friendly (to them) territory and could bail out or crash-land and be back in the air the next day. They could be shot down mulitiple times and keep on flying, gaining experience and accumulating kills.
An Allied pilot who didn't get out of German airspace for any reason-whether he was shot down, had mechanical trouble or ran out of fuel-would most likely end up as a prisioner. An Allied pilot's first bad day could be the end of the war for him.
The Battle of Britain was exactly the opposite-the RAF pilots had the home advantage.
I've also read that at least some of the German Aces accumulated kills against antiquated and isolated Russian fighters and bombers.
Very true, but the #1 advantage (IMO) that the British had was radar. Had the Germans focused on destroying the chain home system & the airfields, & NOT hitting cities, the outcome of the BoB would've been much different!
@@stevebrownrocks6376 Even then, it wouldn't have been that much different. Many RAF bases were outside the flight range of German planes. If the RAF got really desperate, they could order their planes to be based at these out-of-range airfields. The planes could fly into combat anytime the radar stations saw anything coming across the Channel, but the airfields would be safe.
Thomas Saldana true, but without the radar the outnumbered fighters wouldn't have stood a chance. I don't think the Germans would've been able to defeat & occupy GB either way, unless GB totally surrendered.
@@stevebrownrocks6376 If this, if that, the Germans could maybe have defeated the RAF. But then what? There was no way they were going to invade Britain in the near term. And only in the long term if they could defeat the Royal Navy. Which they could not. Nor were they ever even close to defeating the Russians. From the moment they invaded Poland stalemate with control of Western Europe (excluding Britain) was Germany's best case scenario.
After watching this, my thoughts about the single biggest mistake made by the German High Command is not the decision to push forward with Barbarossa, but the decision to push the British too far. And not because I'm British, but because it meant that Germany's military assets and resources had to be divided and in some cases stuck in drawn out campaigns of attrition.
I think Hitler hoped/believed that the British would negotiate a settlement, and when they didn't, realized he had to knock the Soviets out of the war before the U.S. had a chance to militarize its economy and use Britain as a base from which to project its strength into continental Europe (Hitler wrote I believe as early as 1926 Mein Kampf that the U.S. would always come to the British side eventually just like in World War One).
their biggest mistake was that they assumed too much. They assumed poland would be given up by the allies, they assumed britain wouldnt want to fight a war, they assumed soviet union will fall in 0.3 second after the invasion, etc.
Altho it's pretty understandable considering that they were given austria and czechoslovakia for free
They could have gone the Middle Eastern route instead and seized the Persian oil supply of the British navy.
@@benismann Well Austria joined pretty much voluntarily and yes assumptions were made (the British estimated the Germans would defeat the Soviets faster than the Germans did btw).
@@watching99134 it doesn't matter what Austria or austrians say tho, what matters is if the big powers agree. And they did.
And allies making false assumptions is nowhere near as bad considering how much resources, time and space they have
This is breaking my world plz stahp
*Shields in ignorance*
IT'S TO LATEE
“Ignorance is bliss”
HOLD FAST PRIVATE, DONT LISTEN TO THE ALIED PROPAGANDA!!!
Well atleast it killed a bunch of allied propaganda to
Remenber hanz, 1 tiger 6 Sherman's
Well Done, MHV! Your Infographic presentation does an amazing job of "presenting the facts" in hard detail. BRAVO!
Me = Hey Hitler want to hear a joke?
Hitler = Sure
Me = Stalingrad
Hitler = I don't get it
Me = Exactly!
:D
Ha
but the germans did capture it.... only to be encircled
@@sandis2935 They captured most of it, but they never completely held the two gigantic factories or the riverbank.
@@odysseusrex5908 true
i've enjoyed your videos for quite a while for their attention to detail. well thought out graphics, and ability to cover complex subjects in an approachable manner. I have pushed the like button on many of these videos for those reasons, however this is the first time I have wished for a love button. Your use of humor, from the bronies comment to the "If you don't have a hammer...." remark, was brilliant and added much to the video.
Excellent review. Very enlightening. There are so many tv shows and other commentaries which are careless and inaccurate with their comments. One example is that RAF was on verge of collapse in Battle of Britain. It simply adds drama to some other point in the show but then becomes conventional wisdom. I’m afraid American shows are the most inaccurate. Loose lips not only sink ships but cause widespread lack of real understanding. I truly respect and enjoy your work.
Love the dry humor and word play. Clear exposition!
Minor correction regarding the Me 262: you know full well that when people say it was 'too late', they're not talking about the plane's combat readiness, they mean that by the time it was made operational, Germany had already lost the war (granted, you could say that Germany lost the war the moment they opened a second front by attacking the USSR - they just couldn't fight a total war on two fronts) - it was just a matter of how long it would take them to lose and how much territory would be taken by either the western Allies or the Soviets.
To be fair, they really weren't fighting a total war on two fronts. They were fighting an air war on two fronts but they were completely wiping out their enemies on one front and generally winning on the other until reinforcements arrived and they had to end the campaign in the West.
Remember that for Germany they really didn't have a second front until the invasion of Italy. The war in Africa was generally very small and also definitely not a total war.
My History teacher used the word Blitzkrieg tactics in the context of the Schlieffen-Plan
Some of those horses came in handy when the 6th Army was trapped in front of Stalingrad. Seriously, this is well researched and presented. You are to be commended for excellent work.
i love this chaps very well reserched content
Most of his content in this video is bullshit
Well he has credible sources to back up his argument and you didn't refute anything in particular. I've also studied some of these things on my own time and at university and he's pretty spot on from what I can tell, so I don't know what you're talking about.
ChickenStealer im not saying he is right on everything, but if you call someone out without any proof to back up your claim then you are bullshit
MHV is a historian. He studied military history in depth in a university and has read authentic scourges from what I heard anyways
But his "facts" are still subjective. The snow and cold -30 degree temperatures did impact upon the dynamic effectiveness of the germans more than the statically defending Russians. Had Germans prepared to invade Britain first in 1941 instead of diverting a significant part of their forces to invade Russia they could have successfully invaded Britain. But there was a fundamental impairment of judgement by deciding to invade Russia ( probably based upon an arrogance of racial superiority) as it created a war on 2 fronts. That decision was probably the single greatest contributor to the war outcome favouring an eventual allied victory.
Do i detect an Iron maiden reference in the misconception "German aces were so much better"?
probably, since Aces High was the first Heavy Metal song I ever heard live on the Ed Hunter Tour in Stuttgart (Germany) September 1999 if I remember correctly :)
Military History Visualized Have you heard "Tailgunner"? Such a good song about the bombing campaign.
not live as far as I can rememember, but I have seen Maiden 8 times.... according to my spreadsheet, so it might have happened.
Military History Visualized 8 times? I'm jealous.
hehe, wait until I show my "spoils of war" :)
One of the best explanations of this war that I have seen. Brilliantly done!
The biggest surprise of my WWII reading was when I bought a used book about the invasion of Russia for $1. Before that, I was only interested in the European side of the war. Afterwards I realized I had missed the most important part of the war against Germany.
eastern front is also european... moscow uses "the west" as a scapegoat despite knowing they too are western, and the anglo world eats it up. as an actual easterner it is obvious to see that the anglo and the moscowite are brothers, despite the mostly fake rivalry.
@@abbcc5996 The point the OP was making was that he was only familiar with the Western aspect of the European theater, no need to go looking for annoying points to make.
Russia is in "European side" of the war
Unbiased history is very much appreciated, love this channel. God bless.
You are a great popularizer historian! and God knows how much is needed.
If the Germans had won air superiority, wouldn't it have been irrelevant that they didn't have naval superiority? I mean it was my understanding that the ultimate goal of the air campaign over Britain was to literally gain the upper hand over the Royal Navy, so that they could have efficiently bombed any ships attempting to defend the British Isles from an amphibious invasion.
Yes and no. Royal navy was huge and launching an amphibous operation just a few months before winter would had been risky. Espicially with Germanys low capacity to transport troops and supplies across the channel.
But one cannot rule out the possibility of a succesful invasion in 1940 if they had good air cover and made a surprise attack, but the possibility seems very unlikely to me. The invasion of Norway the same year had also been costly for the German navy.
But with air superior in 1941, Focke Wulf fighters, the italian and VIchy navy I think the odds could had been somewhat better. But on the other hand would Britain probably had prepared better defences along the coasts, reinforced the island with colonial troops, trained more men, and built more tanks.. so its hard to know.
Long story short? Nah. The Brits basically had a fleet bigger than the Kriegsmarine in the channel itself.
And that's before the _entire rest_ of the Royal Navy get told to drop their shit and get their asses home *"Yesterday!"*
Or, if you want a better take on the subject and don't mind reading:
overlord-wot.blogspot.si/2015/07/operation-sealion.html
What would they of bombed the ships with? Stukas were pretty shitty dive bombers. Also the Germans had zero experience concerning destroying ships with aircraft.
+ComradeSulomon Are you not aware that the Luftwaffe also took part in the German anti-shipping operations in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean? Dornier Do 217 was one of the aircraft they used in that role. One of those sank a battleship, in fact.
Kristian Kumpula
The 217 was in its infancy, or even nonexistant in time for any decent attempt at Sea Lion, while the battleship-sinkage was with a guided bomb, considerably later in the war. Probably a fair amount of luck, too.
Within the time frame, they apparently didn't even had proper AP bombs.
No nope нет Nein
not freakin' hardly
This historian really is great. Keep up the good work. I've done a history degree and have an understanding of the issues but you dig into it so well and concisely revealing the truth behind myth. Well done.
thank you, be sure to check out my newer videos, because this was is rather dated (late 2016 if I remember correctly), since then I think I got a bit better.
I think one of the biggest successes of strategic bombing was, that the germans had to react. They had to protect important areas with FLAK and AA guns, they had to build up successes and radar stations, they had to keep planes at home as interceptors and they had to redeploy a huge part of their industry. Without a single bomb hitting a target that makes a huge difference. Industry capacity that was needed in so many areas was occupied by the strategic bombing.
Maybe but then again Germany peaked production output in 1944... so it’s very complex. Maybe Germany‘s output would have been smaller if the bombing didn’t make them so nervous about possible impact.
And Churchill after Dresden clearly addresses that the British have to stop terror bombing under false pretense of trying to hit industry. He was very well aware that the bombing wasn’t doing anything substantial to the industry and as said in this video some small effective operations against Ploesti and some specialized factories did most of the damage.
Germany didn’t lack industrial capacity or train routes, they only lacked oil, materials and some specialized parts
The Me262 worked in its absence.
One photo reconisance Mosquito was chased by a plane he did not know about. He did know that no plane should be able to get that close to him.
However, he dodged and the experience was part of his debrief.
The next photo recce which went missing was chalked up to this new fighter.
Then it got a reputation.
So, whether it was there or not, beware!
Good of you to put up the facts.
Your material is consistently excellent.
0:50 Actually the word "Blitzkrieg" comes from an article written by Guderian in 1938, in which he talks about how a country with inferior manpower and resources but with a more disciplined and organised army can defeat a superior enemy force in small time.
Also, three plans were considered for the campaign in the west: One, a repetition of the 1914 plan, another a single strike towards the Maginot line and, the third one, a trap with three army groups (A, B, C) whose tasks were:
-Attacking through Belgium and Netherlands (group A).
-Encircling the incoming British and French forces in the Ardennes (group B).
-Avoiding enemy strikes from the south to line Sigfrid (group C).
This plan was the one executed, and can be counted as blitzkrieg since it followed the instructions given by Guderian.
Wdym. Blitzkrieg literally means lightning war
Blitz=lightning krieg=war
Kinda what Finland did to Soviet union
Well France alone had just half of Germany’s GDP and population and 1/3 of Germany’s industrial capacity in 1940.You are talking about combined power of enemy probably.
And this article is...? Interesting how academics just ignore this random article from one of Germany’s most famous generals
Excellent. I liked and subscribed.
I was born in 1943 and my father was in the British Royal Navy. I have been fascinated by the history of WW2, first as a boy by the war movies made during and just after the war, and then as an adult by the later releases of declassified information.
I read Winston Churchill’s history, The Second World War, which contained a lot of detail, but was very one-sided (and self-promoting).
I am very hungry for the details from a German viewpoint. I would love to read a similar history by a German historian of the same vintage.
Wow, this is at the same time the most concise, the most clear, obvious and convincing versions of these issues. Thank you.
First time in my life I see a list of top whatever, I agree with the importance of everything mentioned, and I even share the point of view presented. That feels really scary... What's wrong with me, or him? Are we both going crazy?
bakters because it's a video not made by an American
J B It's a video not made my a Top Ten channel based off of Wikipedia
The Internet is big; there was bound to be one.
Nice to see a channel that studies everything i study
I LOVE LOVE LOVE ALL THE unique glyphs you use. "baby strategic Bomb" brilliant.
so many have uses outside this fine historical edifice. be nice if there was an attributed collection
It is interesting to see that my university teacher for his course "The political and military history of WWII" teaches those same misconceptions...
well, I basically made the list after I saw a video that stated "blitzkrieg tactics" were used... then I sent it to Justin (Navy Chat) and he agreed. Also a lot of that stuff came up in the comment section again and again, additionally quite many of those I believed at certain points in my life too, some is from bad documentaries, some from dated research and others due to political reasons.
Can you imagine what gets taught at a high school level, and how few people even take it at university level to begin with?
Well you forgot one of the MOST common misconception people say "AlL oF tHe GeRmAn PaNzEr DiViSiOn WaS mAdE oUt Of TiGeRs TaNkS "
That is a great piece, not only are you correct, but most of those are actually widely held misconceptions. Quite often internet experts manufacture positions to counter that no well read person holds. But many of the positions you counter here are "common knowledge" . I have trouble with your point on intelligence, but if it was stated that the allies did not win the war WITH intelligence but by USING intelligence I would concede it. Very well done.
A great video. From a personal stand point I consider the claims of the superiority of German Armour and the ineffectiveness of Allied Armour to be one of the greatest misconceptions of the second world war. But that's a personal issues I've been talking to people about for a long while.
Skringly Well... Crusader tanks were useless we all know that
The British had a knack for producing unreliable designs; it would made MAN engineers blush :D
Fortunately for them, they had some good designs here and there. The Valentine, for example.
@@VRichardsn Ironically, the Valentine didn't see that much action in British service after North Africa, and saw far more action on the Eastern Front in Soviet service. Although it was a bit undergunned for their tastes, it was extensively used as a training vehicle for Soviet tankers, and in secondary theatres, where the relatively poor armament wasn't such an issue
@@Xenonfastfall crusaders weren't useless, well some of the early ones were unreliable but once that issue was fixed if it was a solid tank, it was the early war tank doctrine that was terrible, once that doctrine was replaced they performed just as well as any contemporary tank
Very interesting! Any worries if I react to any of your content?
'Blitzkrieg' was a term coined by the media to describe the 'lightning war' and speed of German advance.
One of the map based wargame companies published a recreation of Operation Sea Lion they admitted to having to include non-historical elements in order to give the German player any chance of winning.
In 20 years coming, Russia never had a chance to take Kiev...
Strategic bombing was especially ineffective when it focused on civilian targets instead of military targets (included all the fuel/transportation infrastructure).
I learned much watching your very well executed videos even though I am 70ys old, and, have seen many documentaries on WW2, as well as first hand accounts from the Veterans..
I love your videos. Very informative with a good amount of humor. Also, please say "Delano" ago.
I've been learning about WW2 for about 50 years--can't believe how much of it was just plain wrong. Excellent video.
Subscribed and ready to support good,informative videos like yours!
Biggest WWII misconception that I've seen:
The Soviets were good guys because they fought Nazis.
People who believe that simply haven't read the history. The Red Army was happy to murder and rape innocent people who happened to be between them and Hitler. There have also been records that indicate that they sometimes killed Nazi soldiers who had already surrendered, sometimes even just for fun. I remember watching a video about a Russian war vet talking in great detail about one of the horrors he saw his comrades do to two young girls...
Skies above, I wish people hated the Soviet Union's legacy as much as they should.
Just look at how they treated Finland, the Baltic Republics, of course Poland and their own people and soldiers.
War is not a Marvel movie
The Soviets were the lesser evil because they defeated the Nazis. At least Estonians, Latvians, Ukrainians and Polish people are still a thing. If Germany had won and implemented Generalplan Ost, all those ethnic groups would've been largely exterminated.
@@romanbarna1316 there was ethnic cleansing and forced displacement in those same countries by the Soviet regime, so not a good argument. Compare statistics before and after Communism and you will see the difference, as many were killed and their lands resettled by Russians. Maybe they would have been wiped out by the Nazis but History doesn't judge possibilities, only what actually happened
'History doesn't judge possibilities'. Eh, no. Historians constantly take into considerations possibilities. You're not really familiar with historiography, are you?
If Nazi Germany had won, they were planning on exterminating pretty much all of Eastern Europe. That makes the Soviets, Americans and British the lesser evil, unless you have some twisted interpretation of good and evil.
Oh gee i sure believe that is worse than systematically exterminating entire peoples. You see, to the soviets this was a war of survival, not some conflict on the other side of the world where you send your young men to die in, as did the US. On top of that, they had just come out of one of the bloodiest civil wars in history (the collapse of tzarist russia), which cost an estimated 20 million people their lives. Preceding that was WW1. My point is, the soviet people werent coming out of some void into WW2. These were people who were very accustomed to brutality and cruelty. The soviet regime, even with all its cruelty was miles better than what came before. This perspective only changed in the 60s-70s when new generations who hadnt seen war were born in the USSR and started questioning the soviet regime.
great video as always!
Your videos are so good and well researched- thank you.
Correct about Germany's lack of an amphibious warfare capability. This was hard won by the Allies, with Gallipoli in WW1, The Dieppe raid, Operation Torch (North Africa), Ironclad (Madagascar), Sicily, Selerno on the Italian mainland, as well as the US island hopping campaign in the Pacific from Guadalcanal to the Japanese southern islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa...all before the June 6th 1944 Operation Overlord - Normandy landings.
The Boche had none of this and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in 1940 couldn't back it up anything like the Allied air and naval power from 1943 onward. Operation Sealion - the invasion of England would have made the Gallipoli fiasco look like a success.
That was very interesting, thanks! You mentioned the Axis was not a proper alliance, and indeed it wasn't. One wonders what might have happened if Germany had allowed it's allies to build Bf 109 or FW 190 fighters, Pzkw IV and later tanks under licence as well as allowing them to continue with their own research and allow for interoperability? By way of contrast, think if the P-51 with the Merlin engine, co-operation in the Battle of the Atlantic and so on.
Terrific explanation and very effective graphics.
Thank you for debunking 20 years worth of lazy documentaries with actual evidence & sources. Subbed!
Doesn't mean he is necessarily correct mind you. Sources lend credibility to an argument for sure, but doesn't mean he is factually correct. There are a few points I'd disagree with.
@@BigJaseNZ Why don't you state them it would be interesting.
@Toni Siret 20 years? Try 70.
Man, i love your content. Greetings from Germany ;)
*Thank you for posting all of your videos. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!*
thank you! Happy New Year!
I think your comment about Bliztkriege not being planned is lacking a broader perspecitve. Germany, and Prussia before it really focused on quick wars to knock out an opponent. This is highlighted in the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, and the doctrine of Schwerpunkt. This is what they wanted to do at the start of the Great War. I do see a point though that the label is newer, but the conecpt was in the German Army's DNA for a long time.
yes, but the main issue is that most people that throw around Blitzkrieg never heard of the Franco-Prussian War let alone "Schwerpunkt". They are usually "Blitzkrieg tactics" by "nazis"...
Mobility was very central in German/Prussian doctrine, but this also means "Blitzkrieg" wasn't something new. Of course, there is also a difference between operational and strategically.
Absolutely. I'm a big fan of the era after visiting the French Army museum in Les Invalides, Pairs. It really opened my eyes to seeing how much tactics of WW1 was the result of a gradual evolution out of the late 19th century.
Have you ever made a video about Stukas? I think they are very interesting planes but I cant really find a lot about their actual effectivnes. I can only guess they were good from how long they were used but I want numbers.
They were old, under performing and slated for replacement BEFORE the war started. But they never were replaced - I think it was a political decision as much as a time and money one.
Still when Germany had air superiority the planes was useful - but in an even fight like the Battle of Britain the Stuka showed its age, and had to be heavily escorted, later even withdrawn.
tommy14 not sure if accurate but i heard that Goering LOVED stukas, which is one reason they kept being used. also why he demanded fighters protect them at all costs during the BoB which meant flying slow and being targets for hurricanes.
I read a book over 10 years ago entitled "Divebomber!" and the author goes into the history of dive bombing and how it was a lot more accurate than horizontal bombing.
The author is very detail-oriented right down to the tail numbers on the planes, when he can find them, so if you want numbers, you can get them if you want. It is a rather dry book, as many history books are, but it also has some very interesting stories hidden in it too, which makes the drudgery worthwhile.
Sorry I don't recall the author's name.
The Stuka, a purpose built Dive Bomber, was a product of the nineteen thirties, but dovetailed with a purpose perfect for its strengths. It was meant to operate near the front, in rough conditions, to carry heavy loads, and to deliver munitions with great accuracy-for aircraft, that is.
The oversize, perforated, Junkers flaps gave it good take off and landing qualities and its old fashioned fixed spatted, landing gear was incredibly strong and highly resistant to all kinds of damage-unlike the retracting gear of most other war planes of the time.
The Stuka often had two twenty millimeter cannon facing forward from the "kink" in the wing, and one or two rifle caliber machine guns in the rear of the cockpit. Different models carried ever increasing amounts of "dumb" bombs , though a common load in the "old" days was a single 500kg Bomb on the center yoke, and one 125kg bomb under each wing. By the "D" model, more than 2100 kg of stores could be carried.
Stuka was large, lumbering, and slow, in the air, like any other tactical support plane when loaded down with munitions. Once empty of bombs, however, pilots reported it a responsive, maneuverable, pleasure to fly. It was neither meant to be fast, nor was it meant to pull aerobatics other than its intended dive on an almost vertical plane. For putting a single bomb where it can do the most good, the Stuka is probably the best purpose built airplane ever devised.
The stresses of pulling out of the dive amounted to around 12G deceleration (when your guts are trying to force themselves out through your butt) at which point many pilots might pass out briefly. This was understood by designers, who automated the dive and pull out so that the pilot could struggle back to his senses after the run.
Some were used to strafe enemy ground troops and columns of vehicles, horses, and men. For these there was an add-on kit comprising two underwing machine gun packs (7.9mm MG34) pf six guns each, for a total count of twelve 7.9mm machine guns plus two twenty millimeter cannon. It was an unholy terror.
Naturally, like the Sturmovik and the Pe-2 when used for close support, losses were proportionately high among Stuka units. You were, after all, diving straight down the enemy's sights.
Early versions had 900 or 1000hp engines. The final evolved variant was the 1750hp powered G series Tank Buster. This had two 37mm autocannon (3.7cmBK), in pods, one under each wing.
6500 Stukas were built. Like all other tactical bombing aircraft, they are intended only for scenarios where the owning force can establish temporary Air Superiority or total Air Supremacy first. Otherwise they're just bait for enemy interceptors. Their decline was the decline of the Luftwaffe, for there is always need for such aircraft in an advancing army.
I am going to break a lance in defense of the Stukas. I honestly think they were not underperforming. In fact, I believe they were great support aircrafts, and arguably the best dive bomber ever built.
Their Achilles heel was its glaring vulnerability... but that is a given, since that type of aircraft is _meant_ to be operating with air cover. Any bomber is going to suffer without fighter cover, be it an Il-2, an SBD, a Blackburn Skua... your pick.
everyone of this guys works are so worth your time... if you're a (obsessed) ww2 afficianado, watch each and everyone...
Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
"Hay Hans! What do you want: Bullets or long underwear?"
Is this the truth about the eastern front?
Think Liberty class cargo ship. You have your answer.
Much like the evolution of the BEF in 1914 to the Conscription Army of 1918, the British Army by 1945 was a very different beast to the one in 1939 that's for certain.
I think one the biggest misconceptions of the War was that France simply surrendered in 1940 actually.
2:00 Germany *FREUNDSCHAFT! is Magic*
Another misconception being that air power - particularly fighter bombers (eg thunderbolt and typhoon) destroyed tanks and we're effective at doing that.
yeah, we covered that in a Luftchat.
Military History Visualized I need to watch more of your channel - you produce too much good stuff!
thank you! This video was basically a "best of 2016" ;)
But what about the IL-2?
@@hhs_leviathan the IL 2 and the hs 129 are designed specifically (or could be properly modified) for that role
The il 2 with its PTAB and the Hs with its bigger gun
Chieftain himself has explained this is one of his videos regarding airpower vs armor
I heard a rumor that it is hard for germans to say squirrel so if you are willing please make a video where you say squirrel
I'm german, i mostly have problems with ''R''. So when i say ''Rank'' i say ''Wank''. It's very misleading for some people sometimes :D
Squirrel is pronounced very differently in British and American English, so which one do you want?
I would think most Germans would prefer the British pronunciation.
@@Nimmermaer This may depend on what part of America. Which accent. I was curious about what you said, so I just watched a video on how to pronounce squirrel in British-English. It's exactly how I pronounce it. (Midwest/western American accent). th-cam.com/video/mGyWifMrDsA/w-d-xo.html
@@cttc4132 In this video, there is a clear difference, I believe: th-cam.com/video/6P6B2JRU4Rk/w-d-xo.html
Maybe it's a regional thing.
@@Nimmermaer - As a Brit, I can confirm that there is a difference. US pronunciation is more like 'Skwirl', UK pronounciation has more emphasis on the final 'rel'
Great video that put things in context. Props to you and the research you did for this.
@ 1:23 at the bottom you have the wrong word for cavalry. Calvary is the hill where Christ was crucified. Love your videos!
good eye :)
I thought Christ was crucified on Golgotha.
+Darth Mortus Calvary and Golgotha are synonymous, with Golgotha originating from Aramaic for "The skull-pan of a head" and Calvary from Latin "Calvariæ Locus" which, in essence, means the same thing.
KoRn Fan on Ketami - Well you can go post that on TH-cam or you can do some research and learn history. He was an historical figure. You can decide for yourself if He was who He claimed to be, but your assertion that He was just a fairy tale is, well, a fairy tail.
2windswords really bruv because there are no records of a Jesus of Nazareth not Christ the word Christ is a title but he is not recorded on any documents or books besides the Bible AND there is no record of a town by the name of Nazareth until the 2nd century around the time the New Testament was written seems a little convenient for me.
This is the first time I've run across Military History Visualized videos. It is refreshing to see a completely content-driven and thoroughly researched documentary. The producer completely blows off flashy visuals and slick-sounding narration in favor of measurable evidence.
For me, the great joy of history is seeing a single event from many points of view. The differences in those accounts teach me more than any single story. Errors, remorse, justifications, conceits, strategic goals. financial pressures, religious doctrines, applied tactics, and more teach me about the human condition.
While I still enjoy the WWII combat footage, I will also look for Military History Visualized perspectives.
You opinions are always well explained and back up with data and other factual info. Thanks Bernhard.
the fact that he has a brony icon at the ready makes me giggle
Richtig Toll!
Very interesting and informative, and I think intelligent, studied, documented and professional. Thank you
Hello, there!
I had a few thoughts concerning your reasoning why Operation Sealion couldn't have been a success. Note: This is all speculation that I came up with on the fly, just a big "what if.." and "could it have been...".
First of all, you keep mentioning the US. But if you assume that Operation Sealion had started before the entry of the US into the war you could take their forces and maybe even their military experience out of the caculation. Although I think it's very likely that the US would have entered the war immediately on the day the first german soldier set foot on english soil.
Concerning the argument that it took the allies years to prepare for the D-Day landings I thought of a few potential counter-arguments:
1) I assume that Operation Sealion would have been much smaller in scale than the actual D-Day landings
2) I also assume that the british home defence was not as formidable as the german defences along the french coast
3) I'd attribute superior planning capabilities to the german high command as opposed to the Allies which overlaps a bit with
4) The allies had to bring forces from all over the world to Britain for the D-Day landings and coordinate that multinational and even multilingual force which the Germans would not have had to
5) Psycological argument: I think the allies were more scared of the germans than the other way round knowing (or assuming) that the german forces would always be able to severely punish them for making mistakes in their battle plans
Additionally, had the germans been more decisive (or ruthless) at Dunkirk, I conclude that it might have been possible for the Germans to very quickly and successfully make the plans for Operation Sealion right after the Fall of France pushing the advantage they had at that point in the war. Perhaps a small, but elite paratrooper detachment could have established and held a bridgehead on the southern coast of England?
Thanks for (hopefully) not discarding my thoughts as utter trash. :-)
Beste Grüße aus der Rhön, mach weiter so!
Could Germany land troops on the British islands? Sure. But the largest concern for me is: How do you supply them?
A German division would need 400 tonnes of supplies each day just in order to be fit for fight. How do you get that amount in when the royal navy would send any supply ship to the bottom of the sea? And supplying them by air doesn't seem realistic either, especially not after the heavy losses of transport planes during the invasion of Holland and if the RAF hasn't been destoyed. Plus there is a problem with autumn weather.
I'm not sure about that myself. I guess you'd have to bring the absolute minimum number of troops necessary to establish and hold a bridgehead. Could that have been done with way less than a full division? Would it be feasible to support those few just by "living off the land", i.e. capturing enemy supplies and equipment and occasionally dropping supplies from the air maybe at night time only? I know this sounds more like a weird commando operation than a sound battleplan. But if it could have been done in one place it would work in another. Also the british navy and RAF do need supplies as well. Could targeting those - maybe supported by strategic bombing and submarine activities - have allowed for bringing in supplies from Germany to Britain in a growing amount over time?
Your point about autumn weather I didn't understand.
I mean rain, clouds and storms would prevent the Germans from transporting in supplies to the ground troops.
Ok, but that applies to air transport only?
kingfishers008 I'm sorry but "USA" and "Experience" dont work in a sentence.
Why the brits had more ships in the Mediterranean fleet than in the Home fleet?Maybe because in the Mediterranean sea they had to face a more larger fleet than the Kriegsmarine.......
I think the Home Fleet had far more small ships like wooden torpedo boats. Thats why the difference in destroyers. And RN still had a huge advantage over the Germans.
Paciat I agree with you...but it's not what i meant in my comment.
Zanzao-1 Ps3 Regia Marine was a far more formidable and a worthy opponent than Kriegsmarine. They had about 7 capital ships iirc, various heavy cruiser of good quality and far better and numerous destroyers than what Germany had.
Karahan Keskin I know, if Italy had the radar(like the british)and at least an aircraft carrier(that was started building in 1941) it would make a huge difference in the war....
Besides the Italian Fleet, in the time of the Sea Lion there was also the French fleet, which the British had to worry about until Oran. 2 major fleets compared to the weak German fleet. And then the Spanish Fleet was a possibility also and had to be watched. It is not surprising that the Med fleet was bigger.
Also, Gibraltar was in the Med, but easily switchable to the Home fleet as needed - as is seen in the Bismark chase.
8:01 I think it's worth noting the amount of training hours here. From 1939 to 1942 UK pilots had around 200 hours of training, while German pilots had around 240. By 1943 however, this changed dramatically, with German pilots having around 205 hours of training while UK pilots had 340 hours, which stayed the same till 1944, by which point German pilots had only 170 hours of training
The difference between operation sealing and D-day were many ....when sealion was mooted it was a planned attack against a nation without a army (after Dunkirk ) ....whereas D-day was against a well prepared , dug in defensive army !!
Another difference: The allies had boats.
Yes this makes a huge difference in terms of needed preparation. Also the Western Allies were under more pressure to minimize their casualties, so had to do more preparation. (It's also possible they delayed a year in order to allow the fascists and communists to continue killing each other on the Eastern Front in large numbers, making the postwar world easier to capitalists to dominate).
@@bozo5632 The Germans had assembled many hundreds of civilian craft (similar to the Dunkirk evacuation in reverse) and were starting to build landing craft (although it may have been a ruse to detract Stalin away from preparations to invade the USSR).
@@watching99134 I'm not sure they did have enough boats to launch (and then sustain) an invasion. And building more boats would give Britain time to prepare defenses. But I mostly meant naval power.
I don't think the kriegsmarine would have been much use in a pitched naval battle anywhere, especially not in the narrow (and shallow) English Channel (where submarines are vulnerable); and I don't think the Luftwaffe could have been useful to an invasion landing elsewhere away from the channel. Germany needed to effectively destroy either the RAF or the Navy in advance of any invasion, and neither of those seems very possible.
The British army still had 1 million active soldiers at that point and growing, there were equipment issues but there were still easily enough equipped soldiers to fight off the minimal light infantry that the Germans could potentially send across the channel, on top of that defences were very quickly being constructed, not that that mattered though because the royal navy was easily enough of a defence in itself
man, love your videos! they are very objective and full of useful information, always proved by real facts.
I am glad that I found your channel! keep up the great work!
I agree with everything except the last point. The Allied intelligence advantage was HUGE. The war would have gone on much longer without it.
So... overall the German army was not very good?
Quinn Collis Kinda, yeah. Most of the Axis went into the war half cocked as well, fetishising offense over defense and logistics.
Quinn Collis No it was good, but we just sucked... hard... Also the germans had a kind of finesse when it came to encirclements
Shocking, I know. /s
Jokes aside, it was good, but not as good as some people make it to be.
It was good, but it's often over-exaggerated. Nazi Germany army was often depicted as being space-age when in reality the technological gap is much closer, in a way, the Allied does have some equipment that's considered more advance than Germany fielded.
It's good, but overrated.
Is it also a misconception that german infantry was pretty much always superior to allied infantry unless heavily outnumbered?
Trevor Dupey did a study comparing the AVERAGE of the countries combat effectiveness. He found the Germans were 10% better than western troops, and more than 2x the effectiveness of Russian. Of course, that is average - individual divisions varied quite a bit. And other Axis contries were worse than the western Allies, although still better then the Russians.
DOSRetroGamer It aint, its just the Quality of troops declined throughout the years, from elite shock troops in poland and france, to the hitler youth in 44' - 45'
tommy, it's not hard being more effective than the guys who's strategy consisted of clogging the meat grinder with men.
Not a misconception but rather misinformation. German troops were no better nor worse then the western powers BUT far superior in unit tactics. Note unit not division not strategic, unit. It comes down to auftragstaktik.
Now in this thread we agree, unlike in the Stukas one. Their reliance on independent thinking NCOs and Officers, their small unit tactics and the use of their support weapons (MG 34s and 42s, I am looking at you) were some of the factors.
It was very finely balanced. The capture of U-559 was the biggest turning point as I see it, but wars are very complex, and my education is probably Brit-centric.
"The capture of U-559 was the biggest turning point as I see it, "
i literally never heard of that
The British shortage wasn't fighter planes in 1940, but rather, fighter pilots.
The British class system in action,chaps from the right crowd and no crowding to be the only ones to fly,one well known Pilot who nearly married into Royalty wrote how the were annoyed at the introduction of the Sargent fighter Pilot,he did add that by 1942 all of that nonsense had been knocked out of the way.
I must admit I had minimal interest in hearing the German perspective on these battles and this conflict. But I do find the points you make both interesting and credible. I wondered if your interest in military history was solely on the World Wars or if there are other conflicts you have a particular interest in? I am in the early stages of writing a book about the American Civil War.
I believe the author is actually Austrian fwiw.
@@watching99134 So was Hitler. I don't see any significant difference between being Austrian and German. Ethnicity, culturally, linguistically and historically entwined.
@@Kamau1865The fact you do not know the difference reflects poorly on your ability to comment on it
That was astonishingly different, yet convincing. Subscribed. 👍🏼
I still think the top misconception is that the Germans were 'soooo technically advanced compared to the allies with lots of wonderweapons if only they had more time'. How many people realise a VT shell for the 88/128s would have racked up much more bomber kills compared to even all the Me-262s being used as Galland intended from day one.