Smashing Hitler’s Panzers by Mr. Steven Zaloga
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Smashing Hitler’s Panzers: The Defeat of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division during the Battle of the Bulge by Mr. Steven Zaloga
Late in January 1945, through the snowy forests and farms of the Ardennes, the cream of Hitler’s remaining army struggled through a muddy retreat, defeated in the final offensive the Wehrmacht attempted during World War II. The stubborn American victory over Hitler’s “Autumn Mist” attack was by no means a foregone conclusion when the German command launched the attack a month earlier. Actions by the U. S. Army’s 1st, 2nd, and 99th divisions from the very start of the offensive stymied the push of the 12th SS Panzer Division on the roads to the essential port of Antwerp. On March 27th, 2019, the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, hosted author and scholar Mr. Steven Zaloga, as he presented a talk based on his newest book, Smashing Hitler’s Panzers: The Defeat of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division during the Battle of The Bulge. Mr. Zaloga argued that the defeat of the 12th SS Hitlerjugend Division in the opening hours and days of the offensive were essential to the over-all failure of the German Ardennes Campaign.
Mr. Steven Zaloga outlined his argument that the German offensive through the Ardennes Forest, known as the “Battle of the Bulge,” hinged on the first days of the attack. The only Americans to hold their section of the line capitalized on German planning mistakes pushing back one of the primary components of the attack, the 12th SS Panzer Division. The failure of the 12th in the battles of Krinkelterwald, Krinkelter-Rocherath, and Dom Butenbach against portions of three U.S. Army infantry divisions was essential to the German defeat, well before the fighting at Bastogne.
Great presentation and analysis - ww2 and the battle of the bulge has so much hype, this is somber well documented
Fascinating lecture. Clearly it needed to be longer as Steve had a lot more to say, but a good introduction to the top of the early days of the german offensive.
Nothing new though,just repeating some excellent works such as-
Charles B MacDonald's "A Time for Trumpets" and
Hubert Meyer's "The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division'" vol 1 & - just to mention two....
@@TheNordhammer I know what you mean. I've read many histories in the past and whilst the defeat of the Northern offensive isn't new, my recollection is that the initial actions were covered in little detail and passed over relatively quickly. I though the idea that the southern offensive was largely pointless as there was no direct route to the ultimate target was not something I remember being raised before either.
Read books
So cool to see Mr Zaloga in the flesh, after seeing his name in print for so many years.
One point is missing, the major one that ENIGMA / ULTRA did not show evidence of such plans cause this time they did no use radios but kradmelder which means motorbike riders delivering the commands.
Therefore the big surprise succeeded.
I must have missed something. If Bastogne meant nothing to the Germans, why did their southern spearhead go that way?
Second attempt to breakthrough.
Bastogne is/was a major road junction necessary for Germany to have any chance to succeed in the Ardennes. What most get wrong is that 101st Abn was solely responsible for Bastogne success. 10th Armored Division (one Combat Command) held line long enough for 101st to arrive and get situated. The Tiger Division is the unsung hero of the Bulge.
@@richardjohnson3748 Spot on www.stitcher.com/podcast/ww2-podcast/ww2-podcasy/e/52578799?autoplay=true
Just some feedback on your presentation skills. Your voice goes very soft at the end of many sentences and it’s hard to understand what you’re saying
I really like this mans presentation is he really american
I have long enjoyed Mr. Zaloga's book and own a large number of his works. This is a very interesting lecture that raises many good points.
However, I want to inject a note of balance into his discussion of the German forces. He is correct that the quality of the German forces had declined by the winter of 1944-45.
What is often overlooked is that the American forces were experiencing similar manpower issues due the demands of a fighting a two front (Europe - Pacific) war, while simultaneously producing enough to supply our own forces and those of our allies. Albeit not to as sever a degree as the Germans.
For instance, to bulk out their forces, the Germans fielded units of men with similar ailments (such a ulcer). The U.S. had to take in men with conditions that normally disqualified them from service. Examples included; people with flat feet, who needed to wear glasses, who had to have their teeth pulled and be supplied with false teeth, etc.
Similarly, both sides used partially trained troops transferred from other services. The Germans from their air force and navy. At first, in our case, men were taken from anti-aircraft and anti-tank units. Later as the shortage of replacements grew more dire, Eisenhower instituted the Voluntary Infantry Replacement Program, which took men from supply and other non-combat assignments, gave them a brief course in infantry skills, and then assigned them to combat units.
There are additional examples of troops being committed with less than the needed training, etc.
Relative Scarcity of manpower was effecting both sides, just the Germans worse than the Americans.
It's absolutely correct that both faced manpower shortages, but the issues were fundamentally very different. For the US, the infantry had suffered far more casualties than other branches and the stream of replacements had slowed down in August-September 1944, in the belief that the fight was almost over. Another issue is that the US had cover a lot more ground than they had previously in France advancing on a broad front which meant that more units were now in the front line, making it even more pressing to have enough reserves as the Germans were starting to fight back instead of collapsing and running. The Army did end up sending more troops, but most only arrived in the closing days or after Germany had surrendered. People also tend to forget the relative swiftness corrections could be made, especially if you consider that everything and everyone had to be shipped by sea so you can criticize mistakes, but they were second to none in fixing them.
The situation for the Germans was much worse, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking for anyone who could hold a rifle. By the time of the Bulge they were down to 40+ year old men and 16-17 year olds to fill in the gaps. Germany still had a solid core of experienced veterans, but they were being used up at an alarming rate as the Allies continued to push. Into 1945 the situation was desperate with men and women of 50-60+ years of age and kids as young as 12-13 being mustered for the last ditch defense.
"Sh......Shnectady, NY."
Man, don't do that to us, we have it bad enough as it is....
One of the big things that rarely gets mentioned in this battle is the US Army gets to use prox fuzes for the first time. That prox fuze increases artillery's effectivenss by 400%.
The British gave the proximity fuse to the USA via the Tizard Mission.
The only thing you gave us is the resposibility ofpulling your chestnuts out of the fire.....AGAIN
@@bigwoody4704
Rambo, a quiz.
Name the only allied army that went into retreat in the 1944/45 time period?
20 points for the correct answer.
I love quizzes What so called Field Marshall didn't cross the 30 Mile so called Channel after getting driven into it for 4 FULL YEARS .It only took 16-20 days to leave? The French,Belgians,Dutch,Poles and Czechs would like to know .You're going to have to make up a whole bunch of wonderful new lies or people aren't going to want to go on reading.
@@bigwoody4704
*BBBZZZZZZT!* Wrong answer.
The name of the only allied army that went into retreat in the 1944/45 time period, was the....
🍾🎊🎈 *US army in the Bulge* 🍾🎊🎈
Zero points Rambo. Zero. Better Luck next time.
wish the cameraman (person) wasn't so confused, about what how to film a lecture
Thanks a lot for the upload, great service!
I have trouble understanding why Panzermuseum would endorse this mockery of history? Anyone who invested minimal time in the Ardennes offensive would know that crucial facts are either misrepresented or missing from Mr. Zaloga's explanations.
@@etwas013 Why don't you enlighten us?
@@pascal4680 Okay, here we go..
Zaloga explains Ardennes as a throughout meager German attempt, only succeeding where American lines were thinly and manned by inexperienced units and failing where facing supposed regular divisions. He only mentions two phases; initial surprise assault and failure some 50km west. What about the fluid battle in between, where Americans lost more than 500 tanks? Where a supposed experienced 7th armoured div. lost almost everything that made contact with the opponent?
At Marnach,
Clervaux,
Hosingen,
Recht,
Antoniushof,
Feitsch,
Stoumont,
Baraque de Fraiture,
Belle Haie and
Manhay
are also those villages where US road blocks were, according to Zaloga, supposed to hinder Germans. But in fact they were all lopsided battles of fairly equal numbers where US army lost whole task forces at once. Bergström concludes in his book "Ardennes, 1944-1945" that where Americans lacked air support or massed artillery, their defensive endeavours were a failure. With this one can draw a clear distinction between US successes and failures. US army was completely incapable of fluid combat or delaying action and could only either sacrifice units at road blocks or plainly flee, which their mass motorisation and supplies enabled. Nothing much has changed from Kasserine where a maneuver warfare against Germans was attempted. Americans learned that it is futile and that reliance on numbers and attrition is their only solution. Artillery and air coordunation are topics that Zaloga should really be focusing on and perhaps begin with a more realistic assumptions of US military skills.
Lecture starts at 2:45
so
@@larryzigler6812 so we don't have to listen to pointless ego stroking
@@b00tysmith Are you sure it's pointless ?
@@larryzigler6812 it is to me and to 49 other people as well apparently
@@b00tysmith There go's your ego again.
Thanks for uploading this. Special mention for showing his slides.
Lots of good info, good talk. But when are folks going to understand that you can't see a laser pointer in a video? Sometimes you have to go back to older tech. A pointy stick would have served better.
And Zaloga, when he turned his head to face the audience, sound level dropped. Found that hard to follow because of this.
Just nit picking his content was excellent though.
My father served with Monty crowd further up (in the REME) and said the whole German situation turned into a shambles with fighting all over the place and no one sure where they were or where they should go!
If only we had the map when hes pointing instead of a guy talking with a lazer pointer
Almost every lecture on TH-cam is like that unfortunately.
only one thing worse than a book which drones on and on about this happening here and that happening there and no map to reference with........a lecture that does the same
Agree ... one day I guess. There’s worse things in life
Why r they all like this. It's so frustrating
The comment at 57:35 onwards about engineer equipment and tank dozers reminded me of the US reserve units in Desert Shield with their Unimog front-end loader/backhoes. Strange little vehicles, but they went around trading holes in the ground for plywood, tents, and other supplies that weren't coming to them ordinarily.
I listen to these presentations all day at work. Thank you so much for uploading
Were do you work ?
"At my job"*
People who actually work don't have such luxury.
Fat L take, many jobs allow headphones in at work. I do maintenance and always listen to these at work.@toytacambery9427
@toytacambery9427 how about truck drivers? I work sales and 2/3 of my time is driving - so shut your pie hole.
Now, approaching the 75th anniversary, its important for me to know this so I can pass it along. I am not forgetting Market-Garden or Huertgen Forest. Units from these battles have to do it all over again in the Ardennes.
Britain has been more or less completely written out of the Battle of the Bulge, deliberately, but we were there too. In fact, Field-Marshal Montgomery was about to take his first Christmas leave at home since the start of the war, when he heard the panicked radio traffic, he put his plans on hold: he took control of the 1st and 9th US Armies with Eisenhower's support. the commander of 9US was General Bill Simpson, one of the few American officers to respect Montgomery. Those two armies stopped the mass retreat and stopped the Germans in their tracks while Patton drove south to relieve Bastogne. Montgomery stayed with the two American armies all the way to Berlin.
Meanwhile, the British Army was moving east over the north of the bulge, and they had their hands full all the way. The end of the battle, which is not publicised much, was the British in the north linking up with the Americans in the south, thus pinching off the bulge. The first meet-up resulted in a bit of friendly fire: a furious British officer stomped up to an American Sherman tank and rapped angrily on the hull with his swagger stick. As the bemused tank commander, evidently recognising the man as an ally because he was dressed in khaki rather than German Feldgrau, opened up his hatch, the British officer said, in an inimitably British way, "I say, you've just browned off my Number Two tank!"
Now, there were a lot more Americans involved in the battle than there were British, but please don't write us off. No, we didn't win the battle for you, but at least we were there, guarding your northern flank and keeping German forces occupied..
Yup! WW2 is a team efforts. The defense of the Ardennes Offensive is no difference.
Monty was still in trouble for market garden, that might have something to do with his being kept in the background
Ahhh...Montgomery who? Oh yeah...the Brit general who beat Rommel a few miles east of Alexandria...whom he outnumbered by fifty percent in men and two to one in tanks? No doubt - the best Britain had!
@@marctempler3250 Rommel was incompetent... I use to like him, and I still like his morality, but he was an incompetent tank general.
@@marctempler3250
Shall we look at when a US General beat Rommel?..
I thought Jane Fonda's dad won that battle by figuring out the Germans were low on gas. I remember seeing a documentary on t matter on TV when I was a kid.
That wasn't a documentary - it was the Movie The Battle of The Bulge and ... that movie had very little to do with reality. Though - the Germans did run out of Gas - Piper's 1st SS ran out of gas and had to destroy their vehicles. The Germans did want to capture American fuel supplies - but they didn't know where they were. There was a large fuel dump right behind the northern shoulder that the Americans were running trucks in and out of moving that fuel dump.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw
LOL! The comment made by Paul Babcock was very obviously made in jest. "Jane Fonda's dad" should be a very big clue to you.
@@frankkolton1780 Eh ... I think there's a good chance that you are right ... but ... I've heard so many ... less than knowledgeable things that ... I'm not surprised by anything people say ...
Still ... yeah ... he was probably joking ... I think you're right.
.
The spirit of Patton was in that Documentary he was in the tiger tanks, no wait....
@me hee No. What happened with some of these visits to the POW's was that they did things, during these visits, the North Vietnamese didn't like - and they were tortured for that. One thing they did was when they were all supposed to smile for a picture - they extended their middle fingers. The North Vietnamese asked what that meant - and the Americans said it was something like a Hawaiian Good Luck sign. When the North Vietnamese found out what The Finger really meant - they were pissed and tortured the men involved.
Another thing that they did was try to get information out about what was really happening in those prisons and the North Vietnamese didn't like that either.
The movie Hanoi Hilton
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanoi_Hilton_(film)
about American POW's in North Vietnam has something on her and her husband Tom Hayden's visit to the POW's.
What Jane Fonda did - was allowed herself to be used as a propaganda tool by the Communists, sitting on a North Vietnamese Anti-Aircraft Gun and saying "I wish I had one of the bastards in my sights." (something not in her version of the incident ...). She did not fire the guns though - it was just a picture taking session but she did make some radio broadcasts where she accused the US military personnel of being war criminals.
She has since apologized for sitting on the anti-aircraft gun - but only for that picture - not for anything else she did. Recently on The View she was promoting some documentary about herself and seemed quite proud of her anti-war stance.
So - she's still the same stupid bitch she always was.
.
20:14 It got knocked down, but it did not get up again. It drank a yager drink ...
Thank you. So much information; one has to concentrate hard to get it all. Big difference between being in a battle and studying it later. Most vets do not know what, where, why when it is all happening but you have made it all so clear for them and for us!
Very informative talk. I could listen to this guy all day long.
The Dragon's Teeth: The US engineers didn't blow them up; they got the Dozers out and Buried them!
@joe jitsu
www.abebooks.co.uk/photographs/VINTAGE-WW2-DRAGONS-TEETH-TANK-TRAPS/30219326686/bd
The German offensive also has a very critical timeline to succeed, just like the Allies' Operation Market-Garden in September.
and brought on the hunger winter from german reprisals for the failed operation
@John Cornell - & they even had the heavier 57 - Ton Tiger tanks, .. more bridges would collapse..!
Douglas Strother worse
John Cornell yep
exceptionally good presentation. no superficial stuff - really detailed and to the point
Remember Zaloga when I first heard his contribution to board wargames back in the 70's.
What was his role?
...he was a master armor modeler at the time also...
Fantastic presentation. Thank you for making it available.
As if a couple of Stg44's and Fg42's would have made a difference lol. Hell the Germans had King Tigers and all's they did was breakdown, get stuck in the mud and run out of gas.
lots of young people are thinking in terms of video games. in real life most battles are decided by cold brutal artillery. shit even on the eastern front that was normally the case. the infantry's job was more often than not to die in the mud
That’s kids question gave me cancer..... he had no idea what he was talking about. Even with the presenter’s response I bet he was still scratching his head lol
1:00:15 the tongue-snapping is annoying.
To answer about the STG-44 - barely 200K were made (100K were made after 1\1\45, and not widely issued to troops - poor logistics records exist that show their issuance. It did have a potential, but it was not widely issued to troops. The MG-42 was a different story. It had been available since late 1942, but the Heer realized it was a double-edged sword. High rate of fire, but, that caused the barrels to heat rapidly (1200rnds\min is a lot). Heer realized control was needed, since the overheating, and the limited ammo the MG teams could carry.
Chris McNab in "German Automatic Rifles 1941-45 gives annual production of Sturmgewehr is as follow: 1943 19501, 1944 281860, 1945 124616. Production targets had been set at 100,000 month in January 1944 but although Hitler got behind the weapon his early scepticism of the concept prevented production commencement in 1943 when it might have made a difference. The German squad varied between 9-14 men with the smaller numbers appearing latter in the war as the NCO that lead them became less experienced at leading men.
a/ The NCO who lead the squad was probably carrying a MP40 submachine gun with a second MP40 gun available on their horse drawn carriage or AFV if needed.
b/ Two men were involved with the MG42, the assistant had a pistol as a personal weapon.
c/ Two men likely had the semi-automatic GwR 43 rifle with a 4X optical telescopic sight. This allowed them a rapid fire sniping up to 600m though beyond that the bolt action rifle was more accurate.
d/ That left the balance of the squad using K98 rifles. Given that the 3 best shots in the squad had the MG42 and the GwR 43 the squad had pretty good and accurate fire power especially at long range. The NCO with the submachine gun could protect against hidden surprises and the second submachine gun brought out in an assault if needed. When firing from a rifle its a good idea to take cover between shots so the bolt action isn't such a bad thing.
e/ Of course many squads were issued the StG 44 and they loved it. When the MG42 was being moved they were able to keep up effective covering fire.
The StG 44 and the 2 other rifles developed (StG 45 and MKb 42(H) had developed were a game changer. Had production commenced in early 1943 and production rates of 100,000/month been achieved it would have greatly slowed Soviet and Western allies.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs There is a reason why the Germans still produce the MG.
Also' ..-The Stg ...copied by Russia.
The same german company also designed the AK 4 for the Swedish army.
I wonder if there were many German soldiers who had fought in the Ardennes during the battle of France in 1940 and then again in the Battle of the Bulge over 4 years later.
Lanzereth...Lyle Bouck in command. 99th I&R platoon. Most decorated platoon in WWII. Bouck, youngest Lt. In the army.
just taking a moment to salute the sideburns at the start.
....epic
I wish there were more talks by Steven Zaloga on TH-cam. I’ve only found one other one
Yeah there's not a lot. If you haven't watched Operation Think Tank id recommend that.
I am picturing 18-year olds commanding Jagdpanthers with half a tank of gas, eight rounds of ammo and two weeks of training. Not going to end well.
The deadliest weapon in the world is a 19 year old Marine and his rifle
@@sichere Actually in WWII it was a U.S. artillery spotter and his radio,
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 General John Pershing - Marine go take out that US Spotter
Spotter - But I'm on your side and have the back up of artillery
Marine - th-cam.com/video/DKmfHOPf3YU/w-d-xo.html
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 LMAO, no it wasn’t!
That guy asking the question about the Fg42 and the STG is 100% wehraboo. You can tell by his voice that he is SO upset that the superior nazis lost, they even had these wonder weapons!
He's a gamer. That's basically the deal.
The guy in the front row is annoying the entire lecture.
Thank you for your presentation. Watch on the Rhein failed on many levels. Realistically, in hindsight, it should not have been attempted.
I thought the viewers of this presentation on the 12 SS Panzer division might find it interesting to discover what happened to them in Normandy. This only covers a bit of it but it is instructive as to what the tank warfare was like in Normandy and in the Juno beach region.
It is interesting to note that as Montgomery drew up his plans for the Normandy campaign, the Canadians found themselves assigned to the toughest section of the Normandy front.
Why was it the toughest?
Because it was so wide open in so many places that it was regarded as by far the most favourable territory for tank warfare. So the very terrain of the Juno Beach regions was far and away recognised as the worst for infantry. Hedgerows were fewer or farther between, but the wide open access for the excellent German armoured divisions made it a terrible place to fight for the generally inferior Allied armour. In response to this, D-Day plans called for double the number of artillery pieces to be landed on Juno than on any other beach and immediately put into action, coordinated with the forward-most Canadian infantry units-the Regina Rifles and the Winnipeg Rifles-both of whom had previously stormed the beach early on June 6.
It was in precisely this sector of the Canadian front that the Germans planned to mass their armoured divisions and try to push the Canadians back into the sea, and then spread left and right to attack Gold and Sword beaches. This is what Montgomery realised when he drew up the plans for the Normandy campaign. The terrain literally dictated the Nazi’s strategy.
During the lynch-pin Battle for Bretteville (June 7-10, 1944) this artillery support was vital and broke up numerous German infantry and 12 SS Panzer attacks. That and the sheer guts and unbelievable determination of the two aforementioned infantry regiments saved the day. These were some tough Canadian kids from the Prairies who took on the German SS Panzer divisions and beat them. The commander of the 12 SS Panzer division, Kurt Meyer, had smugly concluded that his men would sweep the Canadians back into the English Channel like so many “little fishes.” Needless to say, Meyer and his 12 SS Panzers were the ones licking their wounds and howling in misery when they finally fled from Bretteville-minus 43 dead, 99 wounded, 10 missing and 29 panzers destroyed including a good number of Panther Mark Vs. And other than the 29 lost panzers, that was just on the first night!
It was here and at nearby Abbey d’Ardenne that Kurt Meyer’s 12 SS and the Canadians began executing each other’s prisoners tit for tat, with no quarter given. The two sides really hated each other and this made for likely the bitterest fighting in Normandy.
Here is a limited account of the terrible fighting at Bretteville: www.canadiansoldiers.com/history/battlehonours/northwesteurope/brettevillelorgueilleuse.htm
And here is an excellent and much more detailed scholarly account of the Battle of Bretteville in .pdf format: scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/2/
[Be prepared to meet Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the original Star Trek series fame, as he was actually right in the area, being a Canadian artillery officer who landed on Juno Beach on D-Day. I bet you didn’t know that! ;)]
In fact, the Canadians made the greatest penetration of the German lines on D-Day, beating them back almost seven whole miles in the first 24 hours. Neither the Americans nor the British came anywhere close. Indeed, three Sherman tanks of the Canadian 1 Hussars actually reached their assigned D-Day objective-the Caen-Bayeux highway next to Carpiquet airfield-before having to pull back when they could not make radio contact with army HQ and request reinforcements. (And it was hard fighting with the Canadians losing 359 men killed landing on the first day alone-second only to Omaha for men KIA.) Perhaps the great progress was because the Canadian army was the only Allied army in Normandy that was entirely volunteer. (Originally Juno beach was to be called Jelly, but Churchill forbade it noting it was a sorely inappropriate name for a place where so many men were going to die.)
And yes, the two British and one Canadian beaches faced the bulk of the German armour-something like 70% of all German armoured divisions in Normandy faced us around Caen. Indeed, German armour was lined up virtually cheek by jowl. Historians have carefully investigated the numbers involved and the Germans, Canadians and British had more tanks per square mile all around Caen than the Russians and Germans had at Kursk! Around Caen and Carpiquet alone, the Germans had seven panzer divisions supplemented by an additional battalion of more than 100 Mark V Panthers! They were Panzer Lehr, 2 Panzer, 9 Panzer, 116 Panzer, 1 SS Panzer, 9 SS Panzer and 12 SS Panzer. Though few people understand this, these were the heaviest, most concentrated tank battles of WW2!
In his analysis of the fighting against the Canadians of the Regina Rifles Regiment at Bretteville (which contained a number of Sherman and Firefly tanks, as did virtually every Canadian and British regiment), Hubert Meyer, the commanding general of the 12 SS Panzer division (after Kurt Meyer had been captured in September 1944) wrote later in “The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Volume 1” that:
“The tactic of surprise, using mobile, fast infantry and Panzers even in small, numerically inferior Kampfgruppen, had often been practiced and proven in Russia. This tactic, however, had not resulted in the expected success here against a courageous and determined enemy, who was ready for defense and well equipped. Through good battle field observation, the enemy had recognized the outlines of the preparations for the attack and drawn his own conclusions. The deployment of D Company [of the Regina Rifles] to Cardonville had prevented a breakthrough by 2./26 [of the 12 SS] from the farm south of the rail line to Bretteville, only 1,000 meters away. The anti-tank defenses all around the village were strong enough to thwart all attempts by the Panzers to by-pass the town to the south and north. The surprising use of parachute flares with glaring magnesium light blinded the Panthers and clearly outlined them to the enemy Pak [anti-tank guns like 6 and 17 pounders]. This enemy was especially strong in the defense and could not be taken by surprise. He fought with determination and courage.” [pages 186-87]
One is unlikely to find higher praise from the SS than 12 SS Panzer General Hubert Meyer had for the Regina Rifles Regiment of the Royal Canadian Army!
And finally, let's look at the private sentiments of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a rarely noted statement from him, cited by historian Andrew Roberts in his “History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900,” 2007, on page 343, he points out a little-known quotation from Eisenhower that “man-for-man the Canadians were the best soldiers in his army.”
In hindsight, it is something of a feather in Montgomery’s hat that he beat his own estimate of 90 days for capturing Caen and destroying the German armies-by two full weeks minus one day-but who is counting when numbers are so great and the opposition so terrible?
And finally, Montgomery (and all the Allied generals) had insights into overall German strategy and counterattack plans through the Ultra intercepts at Bletchley Park, England. On many occasions he chose to withdraw his forces a short distance in order to preserve them, when informed that much superior German armoured divisions were being moved up to recapture territory lost. This was only sensible. You do not throw away large masses of men and armour to be ground up by superior numbers of enemy armour simply to display your bravado. No, you withdraw and rebuild your own forces until you can overcome what you positively 100% know is a much stronger force facing you only a short distance away. Many have questioned Montgomery’s leadership, perhaps with some reason. But how many know that he had to preserve his forces (as much as he could anyway) when Ultra intelligence revealed that not doing so would only be a futile gesture and the deliberate squandering of many men’s lives? Moreover, London had already told him that infantry reserves were virtually nil (though armour was abundant) and he had better save as many of his men as possible. So let’s try to be a little bit fairer in our criticisms of him.
My hat comes off to the many, many brave and excellent fighting men from the US and Britain. They fought as hard as anyone else but it was a team effort between the three great English speaking nations of the world that defeated Nazi Germany in Normandy, as well as the many brave French, Polish and other freedom loving European soldiers who fought alongside us. Bravo to all involved!
PS I am not trying to glorify war here, just so anyone who might think this to be so can understand that I do not approve of war-for all the good this will do.
HJ were kids. That was not a crack force the SS moniker makes people believe. They had good leadership and fought good but allies had better resources all around.
Canadians did awesome in Normandy, I visited HULL regiment across the river in Ottawa. You guys should be PROUD!
@@just_one_opinion The 12 SS were mainly notorious as murderers of POWs (even among other German divisions), but many, many fought very well indeed. As you mentioned, their leadership were seasoned on the Russian front and really knew how to dig in. But the Canadians also faced Panzer Lehr in the Bretteville-Putot area, and both SS divisions had superior tanks to anything the Allies had. It was nip and tuck for the first five days of the Normandy campaign at Juno. And yes, the entire Allied strategy was to pump men and resources into the five beach heads faster than the Nazis could and thereby blast them out of the entire region. A lot of very young men were killed whose lives would have been much better served not being expended in a war. But that is the case with every war, isn't it?
Happy Memorial Day to our American cousins in the Lower 48! And Alaska and Hawaii too!
@@just_one_opinion Historian Marc Milner of the University of New Brunswick has published a new study of the Normandy campaign and its planning called "Stopping the Panzers; the Untold Story of D Day" from the University of Kansas Press in 2014. It really ought to be on the bookshelf of every serious student of the Normandy campaign. In it he goes into details that are literally unknown about the campaign, using primary documents from the British archives. This is a _genuine_ revision of history, not a publicity seeking one that falls apart upon examination. I think you will enjoy it Milan and it will give you a real leg up in your conversations with other enthusiasts and historians!
Allied soldiers tended to call every German tank a Tiger. To be fair, a Panzer IV is superficially similar and extremely capable. LindyBeige tells the interesting tale during the desert campaign of British Six Pounders taking out German Panzer IVs with relative ease. Things had moved on by 1944, but the six pounder was still a viable weapon that could be set up far more easily than the more powerful 25 pounders or German 88s.
14.5mm AT rifle can stop a panther (must add schootzen ya!) so....yeah
My Dad was at Bastogne.
I think the knowledge of siege of Bastogne comes from mainly the contemporary news reports culminating in Brigadier General MacAulife’s “NUTS” response to the German demand of surrender.
I read in other sources that Hitler believed that Eisenhower was little authority on the battlefield.
The majority of the planners had litte or no experience American military prowess directly. Market-Garden was pretty much a British show.
This could have been an fantastic presentation... BUT...
What's with all the decimals/periods?
Why oh why put up the maps without us being able to see his laser dot?
When will these experts realize that putting up all the bullet points at once is AWFUL!!!???
The natural tendency is to read ahead... PUT THE POINTS UP AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM-- NOT ALL AT ONCE!!!!!
It makes me cringe (and ANGRY) when the presenter mentions lack of time for the presentation... DON'T DO THAT!!!!
Loved the content- A+; execution- D-
It really makes you wonder what the outcome would have been had the Panzer Divisions of earlier in 1944 had been available. Probably very different. If the US Army had not been unable to sit out the early years of the war, it too would likely have suffered heavily in the early war years
So basically the rational strategy for the German High command would be to … assassinate Hitler then either negotiate a separate piece with the United States and Britain or just surrender unilaterally.
There was an assassination attempt on Hitler in July. I think that should’ve been mentioned.
It was also disappointing that there was no mention of the developments on the eastern front. Glantz has said the great strategic event of July and August 1944 was the destruction of Wehrmacht army group centre as a result of the Operation Bagration. Surely they should’ve been mentioned as the reason why Hitler saw no chance of a strategic victory against the Red Army. The great myth that the Western Allies defeated Nazi Germany will not die easily.
Given the United States is preparing for a two front war - against Russia in and through Ukraine and against China - I careful study of the continued use of force when a war is lost is urgently needed.
Excellent - more info and insights than any treatment on this battle I've seen before. Most treatments are done by stupid clods.
Like yourself
During question time at 1:00:10 in - there is always that one Nazi Fan Boy with a childish question about Sturm rifles - who then gets shot down. LOL (He/she struggles for 1 entire minute to get the twisty turny question out, then pronounces the German words perfectly. lol must spend a lot of time staring at colour charts of German weapons and not actually reading anything of purpose about actual combat.)
How do I sit here for an hour and listen to ‘an expert’ mispronounce ‘Ardennes’ for an hour… and I’m an an Aussie
Ffs buddy.
Read a book.
We're all guy in the front sometimes
Haha. He’s so pumped to be there. I love it
Great presentation, except for the big bobble head who had to nod like he knows everything. Had to be irritating.
perhaps he was nodding his agreement with the argument. He had also clearly visited to terrain and had some ideas about the poor location for a mechanised assault himself.
Aww, he's just a big guy. The issue is the camera work.
LOL........It was bad enough on its own.......now that you've mentioned it..........it's even more irritating
I know right, it's like people who cheer at concerts. Like, I'm here to listen to the music, not your screaming Karen.
SARCASM
The United States Armed Forces still have not won a significant battle in which they were not also qualitatively or quantitatively superior (and usually they are both) since Bunker Hill. The Germans won 170 battles when they were qualitatively AND quantitatively inferior during ww2. The American armed forces need to study the German wins, not their wins.
Nobody chooses to fight as an underdog, and your premise seems to be that if an American force won a battle it was due to some inherent superiority. I could make exactly that argument regarding the Wehrmacht. They won when they had qualitative superiority sufficient to overcome quantitative inferiority. When that was no longer true they lost, continuously, unto ultimate defeat.
@@jacksons1010 well those are just lies. The Wehrmacht won hundreds of battles when facing qualitative and quantitative defecits
@@posmoo9790 The needle on my wehraboo detector is pegged. Not gonna bother. 🥸
@@jacksons1010 I'm a communist lol. Which is how I know all you know how to recite is liberal propaganda. get lost
@@posmoo9790 Smartest Communistoid
This story that we were never told has changed my view point on the Battle of the Bulge, thank you.
If you have Keith ablow counseling Artie and high pitch mike that would be cool
Nice presentation. Unfortunately no reference made to the impact of the British code breaking effort which was reading all the German coded messages.
Shooting of prisoners unfortunately was a common practice. Malmedy got the publicity. War is hell!!!!
It’s mentioned in another presentation on this channel, hitler knew something was up with enigma by this point so the entirety of the planning of this operation was essentially kept out of the enigma loop
My thinking is that the Germans would have enjoyed greater mobility had there offensive bee comprised of the lighter, up-gunned, panzer mk III for the offensive through the gap. The heavier panzers should have been held back for battles on open ground where they excel. Air power of the allies was so dominant that the Germans should have learned to night fight.
It was Walter Bedell Smith who first approach Montgomery on behalf of Ike requesting he take control of the northern sector.
Three SHAEF officers told Bedell Smith give the two shambolic US armies, First and Ninth, to Monty. They visited the armies HQs seeing the shambles. Hodges had ran away from his CP, leaving vital maps on the walls. If they did not, there was an excellent chance the two US armies would be annihilated.
A SHAEF officer named Strong approached Bradley telling him of the German build up on the other side of the lines. Bradley said, _"let 'em come"._ They did, to devastating effect.
Very interesting presentation - just ordered his book, and looking forward to reading it!
19:16 "logging trail.."; 26:30 training of tank crews; 31:30 infantry come from Luftwaffe
I have a number of Mr. Zaloga's publications. It was good to hear him.
His book on the Sherman tank is outstanding .
Smashing Hitler’s Panzers by Prescott Bush....
Zaloga has such a negative view of Panzers....so why in the world is he writing books about them!!? LOL. The US army won with overwhelming numbers....they were always going to win just like the russians.
Because he clearly has a sober understanding of them, not colored by feverish near-sexual obsession over "meinen Kruppenstahl." You on the other hand...
My 3rd son whose birthdate is January, 6th; ceret-beret in Zoo Negara. He wore Upin&Ipin shirt which was bought by his auntie. I never like the cartoon characters.
sponsor = ta-ja
Putz at the beginning can't read. SMH
Good lecture, terrible introduction
A good watch 👍
Regardless of all the sacrifice of the British and American armies ,it should always be remembered that the German army was ground down and destroy by the Soviets .
No eastern front ,no allied invasion of the western front.
3 million well armed ,well equipped Germans would have been too much to take on .
Sherman was a death trap
After the Hurtgen, Bradley and Hodges should have been fired, but because Ike was his buddy his incompetence was allowed to persist. Hodges should have been fired after abandoning his HQ in Spa and fleeing to Liege and then locking himself away its a disgrace.
Just like that coward McArthur, leaving Wainwright and rest of our boys in PI...
At a strategic level couldn't you argue that personal rivalries messed up the entire offensive to a significant degree. Patton's dash across France and then into Germany wasn't along a strategically important axis. With the fuel shortage, could the allies afford 3 separate offensives in France (ie northern axis into the low countries, Patton and northwards along the Rhone valley in 44 ? Opening the ports Rotterdam and Antwerp were surely logistically the highest priority after Sept 44. Did Eisenhower exercise enough control over the strategic objectives or did he surrender too much authority to his field commanders ?
It would be an interesting study to ask what would Soviet commanders have done next and how would they have proceeded after Normandy.
For the algorithm
"Lets use logging trails to push through with armored divisions in the middle of the winter, what's the worst that could happen?"
Is anyone but me getting reminded of the winter war?
Do you mean in Finland?
@@ZnenTitan
Yes ;)
@Evan Moyer
Yeah I guess the Nazi war effort was pretty doomed all together by then.
what 80 yrs ago lol
"the final offensive the Wehrmacht attempted during World War II" - havent Americans heard of Lake Balaton in Hungary in 1945?
Very interesting details, thank you so much for sharing...it matches up with my summary view of the war at that time, being; The German army units on the western front were basically cobbled together for this final effort and were also severely under equipped/supplied; the bulk of the German army frontline units (as they were) were still on the eastern front. I am an American and mostly through the movies we have been led to believe we somehow won the war during this campaign, but the truth is by winter of 44 the war outcome was already a fait accompli. Not taking anything away from the heroic fighting that American units did, but they were fighting a shell of the German army by this time ( an old U.S. Marine vet. and Ph.D. Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems company.
No they weren't Hitler moved much of the Army West thinking the Anglo-Americans would come to the peace table.Thus buying him time in the East,as usual - he's wrong
its not that the German army were "fighting in the east" at this point but that the entire German Army was a shell. There is a reason why it did not last another 6 months after this battle.
Most Germany Divisions ANYWHERE were only suitable for defensive operations at best.
people need to realize that 1944 both on the western front and the eastern front was a blood bath for the German army. the defeats they had on both flanks were greater than at places like Stalingrad or even the 1941-42 defeat. Germany was on the road to total defeat
@@bigwoody4704 Not correct...the vast majority of the panzer and mechanized units still intact were on the eastern front...this last ditch effort (Battle of the Bulge) was mostly made up of units not graded as capable of offensive actions and those that were had such numerical and supply limitations they could only fight for about 7 days. The units were at about half strength at best and literally made up of boys and old men.
No for the Bulge Hitler moved more forces west.I think I read it in Zalogas book.I know it was in Hastings and Beevors also - I've read it,The Russians had stopped because of weather and refitting
The rough fact separately excite because top extracellularly squeeze failing a puzzled tongue. grumpy, drab united kingdom
would be interesting if instead of 12th hitler youth division they used panzer lehr , ss viking or das treich and used the 12th in a reserve role
feereel almost like u wanted the nazis to win.
WIking might have done a bit better, the overall quality of the division was better at that stage, but the main issue was the bottleneck; any Panzer div without any serious engineer support was doomed
Your pointer, laser or otherwise, is not working. This program should be edited so that we know on the map what you're talkin about. Someone should follow up and do this job. Without it it is unclear what you're talkin about on the maps.
Nifty
I have seen plenty of military history presentations on TH-cam.
Almost all of the presenters have to eventually hurry up & get through what they have to say very very quickly because of time.
I really wish these presenters would be allotted at least 1 hour of time to say what they want to say, 30 minutes is never enough.
After I got home from the Army in Grrnany in mid 1974 I used'ta go to a place on IIRC West 36th St in Manhattan called Gateway Hobbies..you took a rickety elevator to the second floor ...it was a hole in the wall hobby shop but the guy had all the latest armor kits and related magazines...along eith a great display if armor vignettes and "dioramas" in the back section of the shop...Steve's magnificent work was always in display...used'ta spend serious time admiring his work...I was familiar with much of it as he was a contributor to many if the modeling magazines of the day...it was always nicer to actually see his work than to just look at photos on a page...BTW...I still have many of those old magazine..
46.10 "the 19th of December there's just no hope of redeeming it"
The Americans did not do their homework and left the door open for Hitler to use the Ardennes as he did in 1940. Fortunately it did not quite work this time.
The German Generals realized the battle was unwinnable while they were arguing with Hitler not to execute the stupid plan...
My grandpa and his unit displayed many heroic actions there. 1st Bn 9th IR Keep Up The Fire
You could really use a pointer on your maps, and also better labeling. It is not clear what exactly you are talking about at many points during your presentation.
Did you hear that twig snap , ? better send in a 1000 heavy bombers and 2 or 3 battle ships 1st .
Did not the genesis for the Offensive come in August, not September?
I suppose we should be gratefull he mentioned the British at all. The considerable contribution of airborn and specialised troops in the north was supressed for "political" reasons.
We've all been there, unknown awkward butterbar/master's student/whatever
Losheimergraben.
58:000 why excessive focus on Bastogne
what does ETO mean? In this case of 59:37
European Theater of Operation.
In the same vein there is the MTO (Mediterranean, i.e. North Africa and Italy) and the PTO (Pacific).
@@catfish552 thank you so much. Casually throwing out an acronym that gives dozens of hits on Google isn't helpful.
@Evan Moyer Christmas 1944: tired soldiers from the 101st airborne and 3rd SS panzer division set down their weapons. Using walkies as instruments Intiate the first electronic dance rave.
34:50 muddy fields force panzers to stick to the roads
Zaloga : Exists
Spookston : *Can i milk you?*
Very well put together presentation. Zaloga is a brilliant historian with a vast range of knowledge.
Thank you for making this lecture available to us all.
Did he say : "hitler joigend" ? 😚
As per this video, the "turning point" of the the German Ardennes Offensive, the Battle of the Bulge, was not at the town of Bastogne, but was much earlier
on 23rd. Dec. 1944, as the American forces had stopped and delayed the German main Panzer units in the Elseborn sector. The Germans had greatly under estimated the capability of the American forces, rating them as per their poor performance in the past at the Battle of Kasserine Pass, in Tunsia, North Africa, , in the summer of 1943, (as if they had not learned anything since that time.)
The German artillery was not so effective, but the American Artillery crippled the German infantary at Elseborn sector, & US arms team was also successful in their village defenses. The Panzer Div. were not as capable as they used to be before in 1944. The Panzers had to cross Meuse on 19th. Dec., but the 12.SS-Pz. Div. was still entangled in Krindelt-Rocherath, & KG Peiper, 1.SS-Pz. Div. trapped at La Gleze.
As per this Historian:-
The superiority of Allies in air, and especially American artillery was one of the most important advantages the Allies had in the war in Europe. American artillery in the
European Theater was flexible, accurate, lethal, and highly mobile. At best, the German artillery arm was “competent but uninspired.” - As Historian Michael Doubler put it in his book, Closing with the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945, “By the summer of 1944 the field artillery had proven itself to be the most brilliant performer in the American combined arms team.”
The effectiveness of American artillery, even at this early stage of American involvement in North Africa, had impressed Rommel, as on 18 February 1943, he mentioned this fact
in a letter to his wife.
Most people think the Battle of the Bulge was a tank battle, but it actually was more of an Artillery Battle:-
Later in the Battle of the Bulge, artillery provided the same protection as it did in Caen, Normandy. In addition, it hampered German attacks by separating infantry from its accompanying armor. German Tanks unsupported by infantry were regularly taken out by American antitank guns and bazookas.
great lecture great questions
Nice presentation of an enormous head.
18:38 no more breaching engineering equipment
Watch on Rhein? I thought it became more Guard at the Rhein?
When Zaloga speaks, people listen.
01:01:00 aprox German small arms