ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Man for Man the German Soldier was the Best. A WWII Myths show
With Robin Prior
Part of our WWII Myths series of short shows
• WWII Myths - A series ...
This is a new type of show for the channel. Our guest historian will examine a popular claim made about the Second World War and either confirm or debunk it. There probably won't be time for questions from viewers but we hope the shorter length will be popular.
It is frequently claimed that the German soldier was better than that of any other combatant nation in WWII. Better equipped, better led and a better fighter. We explore that claim with Robin Prior.
Robin Prior is a professorial fellow at the University of Adelaide. He is the author or coauthor of six books on the two world wars, including The Somme, Passchendaele, Gallipoli and When Britain Saved the West.
Robin's previous appearance:
Conquer We Must: A Military History of Britain, 1914-1945
www.youtube.co...
Please click subscribe for updates and the bell icon for notifications
You can become a Patron and support us here / ww2tv
You can become a TH-cam Member and support us here / @ww2tv
Social Media links -
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
For First World War content follow our sister channel WW1TV
/ @ww1tvchannel
WW2TV Bookshop - where you can purchase copies of books featured in my TH-cam shows. Any book listed here comes with the personal recommendation of Paul Woodadge, the host of WW2TV. For full disclosure, if you do buy a book through a link from this page WW2TV will earn a commission.
UK - uk.bookshop.or...
USA - bookshop.org/s...
Patreon Brigadiers: Susan Yu
Become a WW2TV Brigadier and become part of this Hall of Fame
/ ww2tv - บันเทิง
I remember reading something about German officers remarking that they only lost to American units because they were better supplied. So, in an unintentional and backhanded way, “the greatest soldiers of all time” were defeated by an army whose supply line started half a world away when they couldn’t get supplied from the next country over.
Well to the American's credit, it wasn't their country. So why not kick back and let arty and the flyboys blast Fritz. While the Germans had to win by storm tactics and other dangerous intense tactics since they lacked the resources to fight a drawn-out battle.
It has more to that. You see, the Americans is the richest country in the world since 1916, they surpassed the GDP of the entire British Empire at that time. The Americans also have the most powerful industrial complex ever known to man. Moreover, the vast contigous land of the USA from east to the west coast provided the Americans with almost unlimited supply of iron ore, oils, metal alloys and food source. The Germans on the other hand has none of this advantages.
4:00 The idea that the french army did everything to avoid fighting, and didn't fought well is actually an other myth of ww2.
Yep, the French Army was ridiculed because of the defeat but this isn't fair. Sure, the upper echelons screwed up in large part, but the smaller units fought with tenacity.
Actually, when you look at the numbers it's a myth that they were surrendering en masse. Same with the Maginot Line - I was surprised to learn that some posts fought literally to the last, even when encircled and doomed.
As evidenced by the ferocity of Free French units in the African theatre. Cowards don't attack Panzer IIIs and IVs with Char D1s.
They had poor weapons, almost no air support and little to none radio commo
Exactly, you have to wonder about any historian that perpetuates such an obvious bit of historical bullshit.
@@partygrove5321 they didn't really have poor weapons.
Didn't Julius Caesar say/write something like "One barbarian will defeat one Roman, but 100 Romans will defeat 1000 barbarians.". It's all about teamwork (and, of course, logistics)
So what happened in the Teutoberg forest???
But look what happened to the Romans, No Barbarians there would be no Europe or West.
@@daviddoran3673No Ceasar. Lousy leadership =Lousy Results.
@@daviddoran3673they ran into a really good enemy commander. That's what happened.
That usually attributed to Napoleon. Likely a legend in both cases.
My father was a combat infantryman in Italy, 5th US Army, 85th Infantry Div. 338th Inf. Rgt. 3rd Bat. K Co. He always said that the German soldier was a fine well disciplined soldier. "They were god damn good soldiers, and smart" As a little kid I asked him if he hated the Germans and he said no, he respected them as good soldiers.
He probably liked their uniforms. My friend's old man fought the Japs in the war. He had an ear he kept in the basement. It was in a jar, but was cloudy and you couldn't really see it, that well.
They said the same about grant and Lee. The French were let down by their high command who failed to recognise the weakness of the ardennes despite being forewarned after exercises in that area in 1936. Theystillblievedthat tanks could not operare in that terrain. So no reserves were provided to back the 2nd level troops in this area. B reservists. They took the full brunt of the German assault and collapsed. Poor communications were also a big problem.
@@patrickporter1864 A first year military school cadet could have done better than those superannuated WW 1 relic French generals.
German soldiers might have been superior at the beginning of the war but Hitler picked a fight with the USA and Russia with a combined population of over 300,000,000. The Axis powers had about half that number. The Allies in WW2 had the largest logistical advantage that could not be overcome. More resources, more manpower, and the moral high ground. Hitler was a fool.
"German soldiers might have been superior at the beginning of the war"
No, Germans maintained their advantage at the tactical level until 1945.
@@DrCruel "dramatic improvement of the US military in operational performance" Look, the operational tempe during the first Golf war was lower than the operational tempo of the French army in 1940, that according to experts in the field. 🙂
And nobody tells with straight face that US officers understand Auftragstaktik. 🙂
My only regret about this piece is that I cannot hit "like" more than once. Thanks for constantly showing the complexity of the war and giving us a more accurate view of the past.
Nick Stasnopolis
One thing that should be noted is that even with the training and planning that the Reichswehr did in the 20s into the 30s, for a rapid expansion of the Army, that is to say training officers and NCOs to serve as cadre for expanded units, and able to lead at two to three ranks above their present pay-grade, there is a limit to how much expansion can be executed before serious leadership issues arise. I believe von Seekt believed he could expand the German Army to 36 Divisions in two years, and double that given six years. Of course, the Germans far exceeded the 72 Division Army by 1939 and double that by 1941. It is simply impossible to expand a force that drastically and maintain a uniformly high standard of leadership in the NCO and Officer Corps. Whereas the Germans did a good job of papering over their issues, which were already quite extent in 1939-1940, with success, by the spring 1942 there was no hiding the drop in quality of troops. Once the Germans ran through the majority of its pre-War trained NCOs and Officers they experienced a big drop in quality and were forced to rapidly promote men to positions of responsibility they were not ready for. In my experience as an officer who trained new officers, for all the hoopla over the merits of the German commissioning system, and promotions of NCOs to officer, what is often ignored is that in any army short of manpower and rapidly promoting people, that for every NCO promoted to lieutenant, or junior soldier to NCO that did their job well, there was one that was only mediocre, and one that was a disaster. By 1944 the German Army was far from the quality it enjoyed in the 1940-1941, and living of the laurels won by a few elite formations.
The historian Rick Atkinson has a lecture here on YT where he mentions that essentially all the combatants ran out of men. And battlefield level leadership. I found it worth watching . You might be interested.
Every German soldier if they had a good plan above any officer, was allowed to come forward without punishment. At the end of the day their necks were on the line, literally? That’s partially why the French and BEF forces got caught along with illegal substances made them near unbeatable. So that made them soldiers that could run without little sleep for days.
That’s the near same medication that’s used today for Narcolepsy. Its current name Provigil named (modafinil) which I use for that illness. Without it I would have up to 90/120 micro sleeps all day every day. Thank god for it as getting diagnosis was Four years others can be up to 20 years.
Caused by a primary Neurological condition on its own horrendous but this was soul destroying. The difference it makes is totally remarkable ,for all suffers of Narcolepsy.
This issue is nicely discussed in Frieser's "Blitzkrieg legend", the Wehrmacht in 1939 was not of the same high quality as the German army in 1914. However, during winter 1939/40 the issues were corrected (extensive training of officers and NCOs), and in May the Wehrmacht was on par with the Imperial army of 1914.
@@olafkunert3714
Dead spot on, it is also like the idea the Germans were this amazing mobile army; meanwhile when they invaded Poland and even the USSR, most of the transports were horse drawn.
In 1939 Germany was not at full strength, they beat up a Poland who fought incredibly bravely but was no match.
Germany was so stretched that they had only 5 divisions at home.
And you are correct, the buildup took time. By the time they hit the USSR they were at full strength, but the fighting there killed so many men,you end up with ill trained replacements. The US in 1942 at the time of torch were still green, but by 1943 they were well trained and battle tested. Sicily was not a cakewalk, yet the US and British troops beat the stuffing out of the Germans and Italians.
@@njlauren that's true most think all German unit were mobile, instead it was the opposite at the start! But I think what the Russian did was crazy, they send wave after wave over the Volga river. Some Russian survivor said, they landet at night on the other side of the beach, he was thinking why is the soil so soft, warm. As the morning sun started to shine he saw that he was laying on dead comrades, they couldn't go back otherwise the Russian would shot them and in the front the German shot them. So they took protection behind this body's and were finally able to cross the river! The Russian strategy was simply cruel!
I remember the scene in Hogan's Heroes where an SS man throws a practice grenade and everybody(including Klink and Schultz) dive for cover. Everybody but Hogan who says, 'If this were a live grenade, you'd be the first one to dive for cover. You see, you and I both know, you're not a superman.'
Home-front heroes don't understand that man-for-man comparisons mean nothing. War is won by tactics, strategy, resources (manpower and technology) and logistics.
And morale, never underestimate morale or esprit de corps... And hence the silly man v man comparisons
Brilliant show Paul and what a wonderful series of shows yesterday too.
Thank you
Well said Robin. A win is a win. War is not about fair, especially when fairness is determined by the former enemy after the war.
Isn't there a saying, if you are in a fair fight your tactics suck?
Exactly. So much work is put into making sure it's not a fair fight.@@jelkel25
War isn't about who is right, it's about who is left.
I completely agree with Paul's opinion about the Normandy campaign. One aspect I think has been overlooked was the naval one. I recently read Samuel Eliot Morison's book Two Ocean War, and was impressed by the chapter about the American Navy's involvement in D-Day. When you think about D-Day, it was primarily a naval operation in transporting the troops safely, getting them ashore in an amphibious assault, and then providing gunfire against enemy positions.
I usually zone out when presenters get granular about battles, formations etc so these 20 minute formats are great as I am learning the need- to -know basics of these campaigns painlessly!
An excellent, concise and well argued presentation from Robin. Well worth watching. Can't wait until he's back here again.
It's all about the resources.
*Who had the resources?*
In the beginning, Germany could concentrate most of their entire army to defeat one enemy at a time, and that "winning streak" ended in late-1941 at the gates of Moscow.
After that it was basically mass-material advantage which "won the war", not any individual superiority of the soldiers.
One can only play out the "individual superiority" (better trained and led soldiers) trump-card in conjunction with a position of surprize.
Terrible. Robin Prior completely fails to make his case.
1. "WW2 was machine warfare" - yes but the Germans were outnumbered in machines throughout WW2 and yet they still scored impressive victories and held off defeat for many years. How do you explain this except in terms of superior operational and tactical skills (better soldiering)?
2. "1940 blitzkrieg campaign created the myth" - in 1940 the Germans were outnumbered in men and machines and yet quickly defeated the Allies. Impossible to explain this except in terms of superior German operational and tactical fighting abilities, i.e. they were better soldiers.
3. "Germany did not defeat the British in the Western Desert" - Rommel repeatedly beat better-armed and more numerous British forces and pushed to Alamein. Hard to understand anyone looking at the Desert campaign without noticing that the Germans repeatedly outsoldiered the British / Commonwealth forces until October 1942.
4. "In Barbarossa the Russians lose millions but aren't defeated" - Good God, Barbarossa is the clearest possible example of the Germans being better soldiers tactically and operationally. They were greatly outnumbered in men and machines and still clobbered the Russians, inflicting millions of casualties. If the Germans were not better soldiers than the Russians, then the Germans would have been stopped at the frontier rather than reaching the gates of Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad.
5. "Blitzkrieg only worked against a poorly led French Army in 1940 that did everything to avoid fighting and when it did fight it didn't fight very well" - in other words, the Germans were better soldiers than the French. You just proved the opposite of what you set out to prove!
6. "Anglo-American armies in 1944 completely annihilated the German armies" - the correlation of forces in 1944 was much more favorable to the Allies than it was for the Germans in 1940. In 1944, the Allies had an overwhelming superiority in every type of equipment. The Germans had no such margin of superiority in 1940. Yet in 1944 the Allies took much longer to liberate France than the Germans did to conquer it in 1940. This is primarily explicable in terms of superior German tactical and operational skill (better soldiering). Last but not least, the Germans were not completely annihilated, they retreated in pretty good order and thus were able to rebuild their defensive front in September-October.
7. "If the Allies had more tanks, artillery and aircraft than the Germans it is still thought of as unfair" - no, but for the Germans to hold out as long as they did against such superior forces indicates "something else" besides resources is enabling them to resist. What is that besides tactical and operational skill, i.e. better soldiering?
8. Prior says there is nothing "wrong" with "brute force". True but if you don't have brute force at your disposal then you have to have skill (superior soldiering) or your army will quickly be destroyed. The argument that you "shouldn't" use brute force (which nobody is really making, this is a straw man) is beside the point, and the fact that the Allies used brute force does not establish that the Germans were not better soldiers.
9. The Americans at Omaha did not out-infantry "the best infantry in the world" - the German 352 Infantry Division had a large number of conscripts and Ost troops, and was far from properly prepared for front-line infantry combat.
10. "The Allies in Normandy did not lose an inch of ground" - as indeed they should not have, given that they had 4:1 superiority in troops with overwhelming tank, artillery, air and naval superiority. But this does not establish that the Germans were not better soldiers - just the opposite, the Germans held out for a long time in the face of impossible odds because they were excellent soldiers.
11. Prior emphasizes that the Allies were pursuing attrition against the Germans in Normandy. True but that does not prove the point that the Allies were just as good "man for man" as the Germans; if anything it undermines this point.
12. "How is it relevant or important to compare mass armies in WW2" - if you compare the overall correlation of forces (men and machines on both sides) in 1940, in the Desert, on the Eastern Front, and in 1944 then compare what the opponents achieved and the casualty ratios, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Germans fought more skillfully than the Allies *even though they lost*. The fact that it TOOK "brute force" (more men, more machines) and heavy losses to beat Germany indicates they were better soldiers.
13. Prior notes the Allies had lots more artillery - true but this does not disprove the argument that "man for man the Germans were better soldiers". If you need superior artillery to beat the other army, why is that?
Overall, Prior did not prove his point, and much of what he said actually undermined it.
Thanks for the comments
He failed before he even began, as he stated that the question of who was better man for man is irrelevant. So by his own logic there is no argument to make.
The Japanese Zero was the best plane in WWII... until it wasn't.
Man for man, the Japanese Soldier was the best soldier of the war………….😜
I'd say that's a bit of a myth. It was a plane that sacrificed things for range and maneuverability, and had highly trained, combat experienced pilots in control. Once the allies knew what its strengths and weaknesses were, and stopped trying to dogfight it, to out-turn it, it dropped off. Furthermore, because it was frail but maneuverable, it needed good pilots to be effective, but was less likely to keep new pilots alive long enough to get to that point, which caused problems once Japan started running low on experienced pilots.
And it had other weaknesses, like it didn't have a radio (well, it technically did, but it didn't work well so pilots ripped it out to further lighten the plane), which hindered its ability to communicate. Its speed, while good, wasn't great. 109Es and Fs were faster, for example, and a Wildcat F4Fs (which were introduced in 1940) pretty much matched it. 30 cals were generally less than ideal, underpowered. The 20mm had 60 rounds per gun initially (upped to 100 later), which often wasn't enough, especially given the 30 cals as the other option. No self-sealing fuel tanks. No armor for the pilot. Couldn't dive as well as other planes. And so on.
Which isn't to say it isn't a good plane. The long range was especially valuable for aircraft carrier missions, and in the hands of a skilled pilot, it was still a threat at the end of the war. But it made trade-offs to be what it was.
That said, I would say it is fair to say the Japanese naval pilots were the best pilots in the world at the start of WW2, between how selective they were (though they could probably have been better yet, if they hadn't washed out potential pilots for all sorts of stupid reasons), how rigorously they trained, and the combat experience they had from fighting in China.
The wildcat pilots of the navy using the tach tactic held their own against the zero with an inferior plane. One they go better planes they creamed them.
This myth busting series is excellent!
I think one thing that gets consistently ignored is the disparity in combat experience that the Germans enjoyed for much of the war. The Wehrmacht had been able to use the occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia as massive, hyper-realistic exercises, and had then been able to blood the bulk of its fighting units in a short but violent campaign against Poland.
So even in early 1940, the Wehrmacht enjoyed an immense advantage in combat experience. It had been able to use Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland to iron out doctrinal issues, weed out incompetent officers, give troops combat experience, and gather a vast quantity of captured equipment.
Once the Americans and Commonwealth gain substantial experience of their own, however? The tables begin to turn very quickly. In 1941 and early 1942, the British are having to build a new army in Britain while keeping an old one going in the Middle East, while the Americans haven't even fought the Germans yet. By late 1942? The Germans are already on the run in North Africa.
@biggiouschinnus7489 Also one of the biggest advantages the Germans had in the early years of WW2 was radio communications.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Oh definitely, at least over the French. When I first read Alistair Horne's "To Lose a Battle," the technological backwardness of the French Army left me speechless.
@@biggiouschinnus7489
was that not the norm
Well put. The British in 1940 have to rebuild their arms lost at Dunkirk, but they have to build up.tjeir armed forces,train them. It takes a year or more to train a soldier fully. By 1942 the British army in North Africa was just starting to reach its stride ( their defeats were partly that, and partly that they had horrible leaders there). The US troops hit their stride in 1943 after torch.
When the allies invaded in 1944, the US and Allied forces were well trained, either combat vets or years if training. When my dad landed at d day +10, he had been training since 1942.
@@njlauren If I'm being honest, I think even the British Generals in North Africa get a very unfair hearing - they suffered from exactly the same lack of training as their soldiers did. Incredible though this might sound, the British Army didn't actually have a single formal training programme for senior officers - instead it had a jumble of courses and schools that officers attended whenever they could. There had been efforts to try and codify it into a single doctrine, but this was strangled by a lack of funds.
Most of the training senior officers received in handling large formations was done using war-games, paper exercises, and the occasional small-scale exercise. Hell, there was only a single corps-level exercise in the entire 1930s period!
They didn't even have specific training for handling combined arms formations, because there was not enough money to form a permanent training unit to create the necessary instructors.
British Generals in France, Asia and North Africa were effectively learning "on the job", while their German and Japanese opponents had the benefits of formalised training, and years of operational and combat experience.
Good presentation! What's said about the man-for-man myth is true of all these perspectives that focus narrowly on one aspect of war, like whether tank A was better than tank B. Modern war is a conflict of one system of systems against an opposing system of systems--training, logistics, leadership, strategy, tactics, techniques, weapons systems, communications, organization.... Every system has relative strengths and weaknesses, and focusing on just one element is always going to be more misleading than helpful.
Yep.
It's funny how people argue about the tanks for example and speak about the guns, or their armor. Meanwhile, the war has shown that the better tank is the one with the radio.
I remember a book about Shermans in either Vanguard or Osprey, where the author mentions the problems the Shermans had in the bocage country. He then ads that nobody mentioned that the German tanks had it worse... having to move down the channels between bocages where infantry could fire bazookas into their sides.
Or that the US tankers in Normandy took a bunch of angle iron and created the hedge cutter/'cow catcher" that allowed them to cut through the hedgerows. The inventiveness was legendary.
@@njlauren Yes, I believe they called it the Rhino.
To paraphrase David French in "Raising Churchill's Armies" - 'The Germans wanted to be warriors; the British decided to be soldiers."
British forces almost exclusively fought premier German fighting divisions on every front throughout the war - panzer divisions, SS divisions and Fallschirmjager. Those premier divisions were far better trained, motivated, and equipped than regular German formations, panzer grenadiers had double the firepower X2 MG34/42 per squad compared to standard infantry squads. Those continually successful British/Canadian attacks in Normandy mentioned in the video were against the greatest concentration of German panzer divisions in the whole war, the very best Germany had to offer was there. Yet they were defeated. The bulk of German forces were not these premier divisions and when British forces fight ‘normal’ German infantry divisions, or indeed Italian, they generally had little trouble by comparison.
Much is made of air dominance or overreliance on artillery too. Throughout the first half of the war when the Germans had air superiority they pushed the British back (Germany had double the aircraft compared to allies in France 1940 for example) and with air superiority the British pushed back. Of course things aren’t that simple and there are many more variables involved, but the air superiority advantage clearly worked both ways. The myth of allied reliance on artillery falls apart when you realise it was relied upon by both sides to dish out most of the casualties. For example in Normandy over 75% of allied casualties were due to indirect fire, which is similar numbers to German forces. This indicates not so much the small unit tactical genius of those German divisions as their key weapon in that campaign as it was their simple mortar.
I feel it ought to be pointed out that the Germans had an advanced combined arms doctrine and some near-wonderweapons on the front line from the start of the war to the end. 88mm guns and GPMG feature heavily in memoirs and AAR as difference makers by both sides. But *despite* these advantages, and those of qualitatively superior tanks throughout most of the war, British soldiers gave as good as they got or better in most campaigns in terms of casualties. Yet those specific battles where the reverse is true (and these often have their own caveats) have been focused upon as it complements the accepted narrative of the war.
"British forces almost exclusively fought premier German fighting divisions on every front throughout the war"
That is too simplistic, they fought a lot against normal infantry divisions and still had problems in 1943/44 at the tactical level. The Brits learnt not fast enough.
I'd just like to add that the Battle of France might've gone differently if the British and French didn't rush into Belgium after Germany invaded. It made it much easier to exploit the gap as the British had left the prepared Gort line. Also, the Germans weren't even able to replicate the invasion of France on a small scale.
Really enjoyed the presentation by Robin, a joy to listen too, bring him back again Paul if you can.
I can see where this myth of the German army started. Having grown up in the 1960s I was surrounded by WW 2 veterans, mostly in their early 40s, who would recount their war experiences. To a boy of 10, these stories were fascinating. Many times our veterans would speak of the respect they had for the German Army's organization and fighting skills. One phrase I remember hearing most often from these vets was "It took the whole world to beat them".
Exactly! It took six years to defeat the Germans. I would say it was the discipline and leadership of the German armed forces that was brought to the battlefield. This was true for the soldiers, aviators and naval forces. By 1944 that was for the most part gone since mostly inexperienced troops from young boys to grandfathers were what was left of the German forces. Attrition had taken its toll! The German military today does not have the Prussian discipline from the early 20th century.
@@alexbrighenti7233
Prussian discipline empowers your subordinates, demand initiative and trust
Kind of overlooks the fact that the USSR did most of the work though, 80% of it in fact
@@Some_Average_Joe I don't see how. Russia is part of the world, isn't it?
I am 73 years old, grew up on stories and movies about WW2. During the cold war years the reputation of the Germans began to be rehabilitated, since they were now our allies. Since then it seems there has been a sort of glorification of German/Nazi military might, almost to the point of fetishism. This is especially true of "evaluations" of German technology, be it aircraft, armor, weapons, etc. etc., which always seem to laud the Germans and decry the Allies, especially the Americans. This glorification has developed alongside the rise in right wing nationalism and neo Nazi political activities. It's kind of sick, actually.
I'm sure this will provoke some grumpy comments, but I find it hard to disagree with anything that Prof Prior says. Another excellent show
I'm with you 100%
Very interesting analysis. Thank you. 😊
It is always wonderful to see a valid, factual counterweight to disproportionately popular sensualism.
Mr. Robin has such an appealing way of explaining things.
Thank you for your hard work and passion, your stuff never disappoints!
One only has to look at their rearguard actions, like Monte Cassino to see what they could do. Excellent in defence and attack.
But are there not examples in other campaigns suggesting the opposite? Plus how much of Cassino is due to terrain? I'm not disagreeing with you, just starting a dialogue
General Hubert Meyer, commander of the 12 SS, wrote that the Canadian troops (specifically at Bretteville and Putot) were impossible to surprise and simply could not be defeated in defence. The Nazis lost about 35 tanks there from June 7 to 10, 1944 and that is an awful beating. They could not successfully circumvent those two villages no matter what they tried and thus their entire plan of reaching the coast and spreading armoured counterattacks to Sword, Gold, Omaha and Utah evaporated. Montgomery _knew_ this had to be the German strategy in Normandy when he drew up the campaign because the terrain literally dictated it.
@@ToddSauve Yeah German General Blumentritt in an interview by Liddell Hart for his book ‘The German General's Talk mentioned that : *"Once the British had got their teeth in, and had been in a position for twenty-four hours, it proved almost impossible to shift them. To counterattack the British always cost us very heavy losses*
Don't overlook the importance of naval gunfire at Omaha Beach. Destroyers almost beached themselves and saturated German positions with their rapid fire five inch guns to enable the infantry to advance. Robin rightfully stresses the importance of artillery. Naval gunfire is sea based artillery.
Of course, but this was in reference to the soldier v soldier argument
I whole heartedly agree that there are not enough factual books written on Normandy. I always thought the most outstanding feature of the German army was not the infantry, not the tanks. It was the excellent German communications that made it all work.
This, and the ability to improvise and organise en marche when needed.
@@KPW2137 Yes, but that is only possible with excellent communications. The French in 1940 were in many were superior, but they had terrible communications, most orders were outdated by hours or days by the time they got to the troops.
Yes, that's absolutely true! The French communication system was outdated, relying on cables and messengers, with adequate radio systems being an absolute exception. And then, as you said - the orders were outdated when they finally were reaching the troops.@@billballbuster7186
Wow that is what this series of shows is about
I love Robin Prior’s presentations
Great presentation , did what all good ones do , made me revisit my previous preconceptions and adjust just like a good fire mission!!
Finally, someone who tells it as it really was.
To many so-called military historians miss that point entirely, that the British, Canadians and the American were never pushed back one inch by the Germans in Normandy.
It's hard to push anyone when you have no airforce, no navy, short on fuel
@@MFC343 why didn't they have any of those?
@@barryj388 They weren't prepared for WW2, they were prepared for WW1.5 and initially had success but lacked the long-term resources needed to win a modern war. Their gamble at pacifying the Soviets and getting a guaranteed trading partner failed spectacularly and the rest of the war turned into 4 years of attrition. They wished they could've pushed the Normandy landings back because they had no shot otherwise much like they had no chance at stopping the Soviets in the east. The best Germany could hope for in WW2 was to cause enough pain on the defense that the allies sued for peace.
@@drencrum I was mostly thinking because their airforce got destroyed, their navy got destroyed and their supply lines were interdicted but I guess we can also add lack of foresight and extremely poor planning right from the start to the list.
@@barryj388Yeah when you read about how Germany transformed a small mostly non-motorized army into one that was able to drive to the far corners of continental Europe you realize it was a hodgepodge effort and it was largely Hitler’s aggressiveness and willingness to gamble the fate of the country in order to take the resources it would’ve actually needed to win a Second World War, you begin to realize how in over their heads the Germans were and how they had no shot of winning the war. At best they were only ever going to be able to scare the allies into submission, never truly conquer them. By the time Normandy happened it wasn’t a question who would win the war, only how and how quickly. German industry itself wasn’t even stopped by allied bombing so much as Germany just running out of oil, they had fleets of trucks and planes sitting with no tires by the end of the war.
I agree, the German tactic to put 2nd rate units at the Front and some elite units in the back to cope with breakdown in the Front line does work in some degree.
The wide Front idea was the only way to fight this system.
After D-Day with the entire German remnant Armies on the run the German had just one fully well trained elite unit available to cope with Allied units crossing the Albert-Canal defense.
German Parachute Regiment 6.
As part of Kampfgruppe Chill they were responsible for 1/3 of the Allied losses west of Hell's Highway for a 2 month period.
, but the loss ratio was about 1 to 1 at the best.
And that was due to lack of everything.
From aircover, equipment, supplies to replacements.
Exactly what the Russians are doing in the Ucraine, how is that working out for them?
Great presentation with some very interesting, if not unique perspective. The reference to the Trojan War was funny, in illuminating the shortcomings of attempting a "man for man" comparison between armies. Good point about France getting blitzkrieged in 1940 being the exception, although cited as the gold standard for campaigns in the conflict. The "what's wrong with brute force" point was unique, and resonated (liked the question "how was that unfair?" ... and agree that sometimes it didn't fully work, like at Normandy, as Mr. Prior mentioned, but even then, the German military officers conceded they still experienced disastrous results and defeats). Same for the critique of the infantry being the determinant of an army's relative quality/ability.
The image of Fritz and the Tommy in the field evoked Peter Gabriel's "Games without Frontiers" or the ancient Doctor Who episode "The War Games" of the Patrick Troughton era.
Exactly. The arguments against ’brute force’ remind me of one of the arguments used by opponents of citizen ownership of guns and / or self defense, the ‘Real men use their fists, only cowards hide behind guns’ claim.
i liked robin
Regarding Robin's point about brute force ~ 8:10: A rational American approaches war like 'why show up for a knife fight with a knife? Have a gun! Better: have several!" Drachinifel made a comment in a video about the Battle of Surigao Strait about the excess numbers of bombs and torpedoes delivered to Musashi, one of two of the world's biggest battleships, that the quantity of ordnance was possibly excessive. I know very few of my countrymen who have served who will ever say that the biggest of anything doesn't deserve everything we can shoot at it until it's gone.
The problem with the Musashi attack was that a flight of torpedo bombers would come in from one side, get hits, and the ship would start listing to that side... then another wave would come in from the other side, get hits, and the list would be corrected. This tactical lesson was learned by the time Yamato was targeted, and far fewer hits were required to sink her.
I’ve yet to understand the point of not using the advantages you have. Why use lives when you can spend matériel, instead?
To extrapolate your comment in a knife fight turn up with a gun. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest said, Get there the firstest with the mostest’
The Battle of France 1940 was not a once off event, just look at the campaigns in Yugoslavia and Greece. If the guest rightly says people forget about the second phase of Villers-Bocage, well he forget about the 1st phase of Barbarossa and the massive battles of encirclement and movement. Ultimately that campaign ended without achieving its aims, like Case Blue 1942. Tactical successes, rapid advances but strategic defeats.
Of course there is more that could have been said, but these are intended to be short and snappy responses to a specific myth
@@WW2TV Indeed, if having “The success of the Blitzkreig in France was the exception not the rule”, emboldened on the screen when it’s not factually correct, you are essentially creating a new myth
Sigh
@@WW2TV a very disappointing remark and disingenuous in nature, when compared to your other earlier videos.
Okay, maybe the title should have said "mostly" an exception. But the whole point of this was to take on the idea of the man for man comparison, not to tackle Blitzkrieg per ce.
When I was at RMAS I remember Prof John Keegan (RIP) mentioning that when he briefly touched on discussing Caen about how many interpretations even then in the mid 70's there were about what were/was the key factor in closing the Falaise Gap.
The Germans had the best fighters >Germany lost the air war.
The Germans had the best battleships >The German navy was wiped out.
The Germans had the best tanks >Ummm, Kursk, anyone? El Alemain? Arracourt?
The Germans had the best tactics >D-Day?...something the Germans could never even hope to accomplish.
The Germans had THE BEST "Wonder Weapons" >V1s & V2s had little impact & gobbled scarce resources, meanwhile... Atom Bomb! (which was originally destined for Berlin)
The Germans had THE BEST >They lost so badly that Germany, as the world knew it, ceased to exist
The Germans had the best propaganda >...well now we have to agree & here, over 80 years later, their imagery & messaging still holds sway.
Maybe you should understand the difference between tactical, operational and strategic level. If the question was about the tactical level, the answer is quite clear and it does not make sense to give stategic arguments. You look uneducated.
Hint: US military historians, some even wrote for the US army, were very blunt: 1943/44 the Germans outfought the allies at the tactical level and often at the operational level too, the allies compensated for the deficiencies of their officers with logistics. OK?
I've had this argument more than once: the Germans supposedly had the best soldiers, the best generals, the best tanks, planes and weapons. Yet in May 1945 in Berlin you'd struggle to find two bricks on top of each other. With such a spectacular loss, they had more than one disadvantage.
Strategy or grand Strategy of the level of state and highest level of military command.
With some good reasons behind it, traditionally if prussia or germany needed it, the war was lost.
The Wehrmacht lacked men like Marshall, Eisenhower and Alan Brooke in the Postion in the OKW .
And Hitler was BdH, Commander of the army
Will a Myth show be done on 'all shots fired on D-Day came from a sniper'?
I tackled the sniper myth earlier - enjoy th-cam.com/users/livebasXk3nWvbQ?si=C1sHTJiM-mqxltcl
Well said! D-Day Germany had 65 Divisions in France and Italy and 196 Divisions facing the USSR. It wasn't a game of Cricket or Rugby.
@robertmiller2173 Additionally in terms of the theatre as a whole the Allies never held overwhelming superiority on land during the Normandy battle. Not in terms of divisions deployed, Von Rundstedt had 60 divisions under his command on June the 6th, Ike had 38 divisions. The Allies achieved local superiority by strategic deception, air superiority and able generalship.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Another factor in the division count was length of front.
@@DD-qw4fz The Germans had 60 divisions, the Allies had 38...
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- many German divisions in Normandy had been sent there to rebuild after being smashed on the Eastern Front, many of them were not full strength like most of the Allied divisions.
@@goldleader6074 Waffen SS. divisions in France were over 20,000 men strong, those were full strenghth units.
The more skilled the enemy the more glory in their defeat.
If that were true they would have won. Man for man i don't see it. Professional Army beaten by the man on street, who had never fought before.
Indeed, and yet the myth pervades, not just among the Wehraboos but with some historians too
The 'professional army' ceased to exist after the heavy casualties suffered during Barbarossa and the winter of 1941, and if you study the makeup of the German army from mid 1943 onwards, after the surrender of Tunisia and Stalingrad, it certainly couldn't be described as a 'professional army', far from it.
@@malcolmhunt7108 By 1944 it was basically a hodge podge of strong and weak units, certainly the best units ( at least in the West) would have been the SS Panzer divisions and Panzer Grenadiers who were stationed around the country sides surrounding the city of Caen in the British and Canadian sector. The rest of the units on the coastlines of Normandy were static security divisions who were not equipped with heavy weaponry and artillery.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- whilst the strongest units in Normandy were the Pz and Pzgr units the rest of the units were not all static divisions and whilst they may not have had their full complement they certainly didn't lack heavy weapons and artillery. Many of the problems were due to a lack of training with some of the divisions being formed in early 1944 and were made up of Landesschutzenverbande and Osttruppen. As regards the artillery the problem was the different calibres many units had, made up of captured Soviet stock, e.g. Art.Regt.266 of the 266.Inf.div. had 3 batteries of Russian 7.62cm guns, 3 batteries of Russian 12.2cm guns and 4 batteries of Russian 15.5cm guns whilst Art.Regt.343 of the 343.inf.div. had 5 batteries of French 15.5cm guns, 1 battery of French 10cm guns and 3 batteries of Russian 7.62cm guns. This is on top of those Infantry divisions that were equipped with the standard German 10.5cm and 15cm guns, as you can imagine supply was a nightmare.
As a communicator in the US Army back in the 1970's where we saw the end of the war in Vietnam and the reshaping of the Army from jungle warfare to desert warfare in anticipation of the wars in the middle east, I was able to participate in the changes in training, and the change of the emphasis of man on man fighting to more complicated battle plans where entire units were controlled to combat not only the small gorilla bands we saw in Nam to the more disciplined middle east fanatical troops who were, not as well trained as we were, perhaps more aggressive in their actions. I served with Engineers in Nam, then with the Armored Cav (Brave Rifles!) and moved on to Infantry (The Old Guard) and later administration (recruiting command) so got a broad view of the changes. It was a great time to be a soldier, not so great a time finding recruits what with the anti-war movement still present and the end of the draft. I planned on going 30 years but opted out after seeing the dirty side of the Army that was the Recruiting command as a field recruiter in Minnesota. I moved on to a career in law enforcement but my time in the Army served me well in my new career. Thanks so much for this look at the truth of the myths.
"I don't have to tell you who won the war. You know our artillery did."---George S. Patton
It's odd that from at least Second Alamein onwards, the British inflicted a lot more casualties than they suffered, despite only a modest numerical advantage - about 3:2 at both Alamein and during Operation Goodwood - which was much less than the 3:1 normally required for a successful offensive. Also, in France in 1940, and in Greece in 1941, the British were outnumbered by at least 5:1, and even in the desert prior to Montgomery's arrival Rommel lost as often as he won - losing twice at Tobruk, as well as suffering the first major defeat for the German Army during Operation Crusader.
Not really odd at all. I believe allied forces were double that of axis at Alamein who were plagued by logistical inferiority. Can't use your airpower to defend your troops with no gas.
Goodworth wasn't exactly a victory anyway. It's an incontrovertible truth that when British faced Germans in equal numbers and equipment, Germans invariably prevailed.
"One by one the Spartans fell, who could withstand such an onslaught " that utterance by some ancient Greek poet could be applied to the German armed forces of WW2.
@@beachcomber1able "" It's an incontrovertible truth that when British faced Germans in equal numbers and equipment, Germans invariably prevailed.""
Not really - see *Operation Crusader 1941.*
Out of curiosity, the Allies had 3.5 million men against Germany with 3.7 million in France, how's that 5 to 1? And almost twice as many tanks?
Well that's unfortunate because he mentions the British. However, the British were not the only fighting force so this is pretty confusing. @@scottkrater2131
@@beachcomber1able Indeed, this low casualty rate was down to Monty's planning. In contrast with American casualties that were astronomic. By late 1944 12th Army Group were loosing more men than could be replaced. Indicative of the stagnation of the US Army during the inter-war period.
Fantastic by Robin. Expected a succinct dissection of wehraboo mythology & he delivered in spades.
i really enjoyed this. thank you
Good stuff. Also sixty percent of the German Army was horse drawn.
The Germans sure put up a hell of a fight after D-DAY, the punishment they took without cracking was impressive by any standard. Trouble is there's nothing to compare it to, unless someone can point an example out?
There is but one standard for good or success in combat- victory. Without that one standard, you lose- regardless of how well you were trained. Victory is victory, anything else is failure. That standard is all that matters, assuming you kept your honor as clean as possible and minimized civilian casualties as much as possible.
Funny how that standard never gets applied to wars like Vietnam
According to the Germans, the Finns were the best. I believe it. Sisu!
The German army continued to fight well; even to the end. But man for man...not the best. A good book which compares US and German armies in the Vosges Mountains is "When the Odds Were Even" by Keith Bonn. He uses lots of statistics (not always an exciting read) and comes up with good, factual results. Thanks for the video!!
Read up on the battle in the Hurtegen forest.
Good point. They really messed up the US army there. Hurtegen also shows that the nature of the terrain (especially for the defender in this place) always has a vote.@@jb-xc4oh
"But man for man...not the best."
As units the Germans were much better led at the tactical level, German officers and NCOs were better. Check Hürtgenwald if you want a large scale comparison, break down of units, high number of self-mutilations etc. were only observed on the US side.
@@olafkunert3714Sources on tactical leadership, please. You automatically get dinged points for using German memoirs.
"We all know the artillery won the war."
-Patton
Supposedly from an address he gave to a formation of troops shortly after the war.
....and the carpet bombing. Just ask the Germans....at Saint-Lo.
Was that not Ike
The Germans seem to have agreed. It several German unit histories and personal accounts, they mention “Trommel Feuer“, where the shells impacting sounded like a rolling drum.
really like the comment that somehow using more equipment is "unfair." the 12 v. 12 comment also applies to "One Tiger could beat one Sherman." that's nice. also irrelevant.
Yet another excellent show. Thank you Woody and Robin.
Woody/Robin. A very interesting presentation on an unusual subject. Loving these myth episodes! Thanks, Bob
So 30 days is the Wereaboos' standard is it ........... Well those Australians at Trobuk are the record holders then held the Africa Corps off while surrounded . I rest my case
It was a defeat and it wasn’t just the good old digger.
Do not forget that the German soldier was juiced up on Pervitin.
Some were in 1940 and early on, but the idea every German was high as a kite, is not true
Please indicate to me when the Wermacht stopped issuing Pervitin to the German troops.
Robert Kershaw talks about it in his Dunkirk show with us th-cam.com/users/live-J83w1W93sI?si=t6LzbQzlSn06wPto. Basically pervitin gave a short term buzz, but was useless in long campaigns. Anyone who thinks more than a small percentage of German troops was on drugs the whole time has been reading too much BS on the internet
Robin made some greats points with how Blitzkrieg only works once, that's very true because it relies mostly on surprise and you can't repeat that forever because once the element of surprise is gone the opponent will eventually adjust to your tactics. I do think certainly at the tactical and operational level the Germans were the best, however I would also add that they did have one weakness and that was the obsession with their doctrine of *counter attacks* .
The British army were already familiar with the German tactic of counter attacks since the Battle of the Somme, when German counter attacks caused the German forces horrific casualties with little gain. ln WW2 Montgomery used the fact that the Germans always used this tactic to help break the offensive power of the Wehrmacht in both the Second Battle Of Alamein and the Normandy Campaign.
When faced with German forces in well prepared defensive lines held in depth, he used a tactic he called *'Crumbling`* in which he launched a limited attack against the German lines and then dug in and awaited the quick German counter attacks, this would expose the German units to the far greater firepower in terms of artillery his formations had. This tactic had the effect of minimising Allied casualties while destroying the German forces who exposed themselves in the counter attack.
This tactic of Montgomery had the effect of making him look cautious in the eyes of the Americans but it was highly effective. ln both the El Alamein and Normandy battles as it ensured that the German forces were unable to react effectively when a break through was finally achieved.
Thanks for your time Woody and Robin.
👍
When looking at British tactics in Northwest Europe one must always keep in mind that Britain had exhausted her manpower by this point in the war. After Normandie Montgomery had to dismantle one of his infantry divisions to keep the others at strength. Britain could not afford heavy casualties. Another issue stemming from World War 1, there was the perception that a lot of British troops were lost in pointless and wasteful attacks. so it was fairly common for the junior officers to not push attacks where they believe the objective did not justify the casualties.
But the question is man for man - suggesting was he better trained, had more battlefield experience, was he better equipped, was his morale better surely? And also what percentage of the total force was at this high caliber - each army will have its "Elite" element.....The initial question was asked Man for Man - not what matters?
@willygunnerlewis5468 Fun fact the only volunteer unit in the German army was the Panzergrenadier Division Großdeutschland, even the famous German 6th army at Stalingrad that everyone says is "elite" was made up of reservists/ conscripts. I think that what made the German army so effective was the NCO'S and officers more than anything.
Yes well perhaps the question should have been who had the best commanders? As far as Normandy my opinion would be that the Battle was already won by the allies after they had gained a foothold on the French coast. The overwhelming air superiority was a huge factor.....
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- the 'GD' was the only division in the Heer that was allowed to accept volunteers from all across Germany, where as other divisions recruited from a specific Wehrkriess, but having said that it wasn't an all volunteer division and men were still drafted by it or were transferred from other units.
I know the GD was formed long before ww2 so not sure if that had something to do with volunteers? The Lehr on the other hand was formed in 43 and I think was the only truly armoured heer division. Panzer Lehr was all but destroyed mainly by allied Air power during Op. Cobra.
@@willygunnerlewis5468 The Panzer Lehr had also suffered heavy casualties during the battles around Caen against the British 2nd army before Operation Cobra, around 2,972 casualties and reported the loss of 51 tanks and assault guns, 82 halftracks and 294 other vehicles.
Australians say hold our beer
Thank you gentlemen--
The Germans were massively outnumbered in troops and materials…it’s amazing they held out as long as they did.
I have always thought that any soldier is only as good as his/her training and leadership. As far as who was "best", I seem to recall the General Zhukov saying that although the German was good, he thought they lacked the real fanaticism of the Japanese (and he fought both).
This is one of those area where, sure, maybe the German infantry man for man fought better, particularly given their constraints (US artillery was borderline cheat codes levels of effective) but at the end of the day, who cares? Germany was ahead of the curve in a lot of tactics and doctrine early war but that only goes so far. They had to be, it was their only way to get any success and they knew it. They spent a bit more time and effort prewar taking exercises and training seriously compared to the US and UK (at least for the army side of things). Problem for Germany was twofold: 1) If the war drags on, the enemy can easily learn what you did well and catch up if not leapfrog you and 2) Casualties make it hard to keep up the quality; if your doctrine only works if soldiers get prewar/early war levels of training and are your relatively young and fit men, well that doctrine will break once the casualties start to mount.
I've got no problem with the idea that their infantry may have been the best of any nation. Their small unit tactics may have been too, it's hard to measure and adjust for the variables. Thing is it just didn't matter. Not in the "overwhelmed by numbers" way but in the "we have more smart guys in logistics so we showed up with more tanks...oh and our math nerds precalculated all the firing tables so we can drop artillery on you within minutes of finding you" kind of way. You need good infantry, but you need good other arms and support elements too.
For the algorithm!!! Keep ‘em coming Paul! Love ya brother God speed!
Best 20 minutes I've had in a good while..well done gentlemen GREAT DISCUSSION
Brevity is the soul of wit; that's why this video is over 20 minutes long
Not sure what you are saying, this is a short video for WW2TV
good show :) now i am interested in Robins future book :)
True that. A statement i can agree with. Can't argue with that and i never have. My thoughts exactly.
My best friends grandad was in arnhem in 1944 and he without doubt says the Germans were unbelievable soldiers they had so much respect for them
Right, both the Germans and the Japanese had long range plans to attack with surprise in large scale war. This is obvious back to 33 for the Germans and 36 for the Japanese. Give me 6 or 7 years to train in secret and my soldiers will certainly be able to prevail in the beginning. Its the advantage of naked aggression. Later in the war these troops did not show this, the excellent Japanese air force suddenly became mere mortals once the allies had begun training for combat. Late in the war the Germans had really two types of soldiery, veterans all the way from Poland (and their officers) and the new recruits. Just like any other army from the beginning of time the experienced have learned to survive. The new volkswaffen recruits in the last year of the war were not a bit better than the allied troops at the beginning of the war. You learn to become profiencent with your tools.
I think the German army was able to defeat French army in so less time such comprehensively despite French army being superior to Nazis in tanks and Manpower, and too this comprehensively is still so appalling to me.
But It shows how much motivation and dedication, is important in War. This feverish of war aversion, I think was still rampant in whole French army, they were led so poorly in WW2 , the whole situation was laughably bad.
But Man to man, German army was not better than Americans or British, or Heck even Japanese.
Germans were literally routed in 1944 in France, Until Model come to stabilize the situation in October, November. It was this appalling performance of Nazis in 1944 that convinced allied high command to greenlit a risky operation as Market Garden.
But in opinion , this whole comparison of man vs man is disingenuous and ahistorical, and illogical. War is not won man vs man, it is won by combined warfare, good leadership, logistics , good operational commanders, not man vs man. War is fought in multiple fronts, from intelligence to civilian force, from politics to diplomacy to supply, so this whole discussion is farce
The German troops were all on the German version of meth, which I'm sure helped with the Blitzkrieg.
The idea that you can compare man for man is exactly the farce we are tacking - hence the video. We are saying exactly that, that it's an unfair way to armies. Have you actually watched the video?
@@mariakelly90210 I think this contribution of meth in those wholesale and unbelievable military success is overplayed.
I mean sure, German soldiers were on meth, but as I have said earlier, Infantry alone can not win war, and Nazis won because they were far far superior operationally, and their soldiers were highly motivated , so closely tied to a racist and destructive nazi ideology.
But all in all, The top brass of French in 1940 were laughably bad, their troop deployment completely muddled, their spirit of taking any action even representative of offensive spirit completely dead, that I am a firm believer that France was not ready for a war of this magnitude. Their trauma of ww1 was still hurting, those terrible manpower losses haunted them.
I mean, I was watching Indy Neidel's ww2 week by week and I came to knew when area commander asked for aircraft in breakthrough area in Ardennes sector, two third of allocated planes were relocated by higher ups. So, The top brass in FRENCH COMMAND WERE JUST out of touch.
@@WW2TV Eh! I was not talking about the content of video really and just expressing my opinion on all those Wehrboos claiming Wehrmacht supremacy.
It was just my views, not some reply or review of your video sorry Paul for misunderstanding.
And keep up the great content despite less views.
Ah okay, thanks for clarifying. It looked like you were directing the comments at the video. Views are going up at the moment which is great. Thanks again
Having read a reasonable amount on the Fight in France in 1944 it seems the Allies had massive preponderence in the Air and many more artillery shells....A good discussion....but are hairs being split? Like a Barrister who picks up a Brief....either as a Defender or a Prosecutor....he looks at many similar Facts available to both sides (Discovery) and then builds a case.
Comparisons of the the fieldcraft of the infantries of the War do not have to devolve into the simplistic arguments outlined in the video.
Aw well thanks for your feedback. Merry Christmas
The French didn't fight well? Nonsense. At the same moment that the bulk of the German armored forces were beginning to penetrate the frontier above Sedan, the advancing French mechanized units engaged the advancing armor of the German Sixteenth Army Corps in central Belgium. The two German tank divisions of the Sixteenth Corps were shielding the main armored advance to their south. Clearly, if the French broke through their screen, the whole idea of the German offensive would promptly implode. And now the Germans found a serious adversary, the French Cavalry Corps. Despite its name the Cavalry Corps was a formidable armored and mechanized force, and in the ensuing fight gave a good account of itself. The French H39 tank, for example, was capable of destroying a German Mark 4. The French were vastly outnumbered and without air support but on the other hand their artillery was vastly better than anything the Germans had. The fire was so accurate that at one point the staffs of the tank brigades of the Fourth Armored Division were “chased out of their command posts and two battalion commanders killed,” according to the divisional diary. The result was the only large scale tank engagement of 1940, and, in point of fact, the most intense large-scale battle of 1940. Fighting began on the morning of the fourteenth, and by the end of the day the Germans had been repulsed. The next day they returned to the offensive, but the French artillery and tanks did heavy damage, gravely wounding the senior officers of the Fourth Armored Division, who had to be evacuated. Over the course of the battle, the French had more than one hundred tanks destroyed outright, but they gave better than they received-the German Third and Fourth Armored Divisions between them lost more than 150 vehicles, with as many more being severely damaged. By the evening of the fifteenth, the Germans had abandoned the battlefield. Given the size of the armored forces involved on the German side, two divisions with slightly more than 250 tanks apiece, and given the usual ratio of completely destroyed to unserviceable tanks, the Germans had basically lost one entire armored division in this engagement.
The Battle of the Gembloux Gap thus epitomizes the paradoxical nature of May 1940. In the first (and only) serious battle, the only large-scale tank-versus-tank engagement, the French had prevailed and forced the Germans to retreat. Postwar German analyses of the battle opine that if Prioux had been reinforced-instead of told to withdraw-the “whole German front in Belgium might have crumpled.” So much for the silly idea that the French didn't fight well or had no notion of how to deploy armor.
Example of tank warfare: 😉
An example that the Americans AND British (Canada and Australia and New Zealand) second-class were, in terms of material losses: The Americans have lost 20,000 tanks and Englishmen 20,000 tanks lost, Germany against America AND Britain "only" 6000 Panzer lost. (The Russians Front not counting.) The combat effectiveness of the British and Americans was a joke, considering that main forces Germany's been fighting on the Eastern Front have.
That's rather interesting, considering total tank/tank destroyer, and self-propelled gun losses for the US, in the entire war, W. Europe, Italy, North Africa, and the Pacific, were 11k. The British (including Commonwealth units) lost about 16k over the course of the war. Germany lost a bit over 67k. Of course, that includes the Eastern Front. Interesting tidbit there, though, the USSR claims to have destroyed roughly 43k German tanks on the Eastern Front. Which leaves 24k to be destroyed elsewhere. Now, given that Germany spent much of the time on the defense, with all the advantages that entails...
And to focus on a smaller situation, US tank losses in the Battle of the Bulge were a tad shy of 800. German losses were a tad over 700. And that was their best stuff, the cream of the crop. And keep in mind, that's the entire battle, both the start when Germany had surprise on their side, when they attacked into stiffening resistance, and all the push back to collapse the bulge, so both sides on offense, both sides on defense.
@@Axterix13 Also interesting, I also remember 1 on 1 (Germany vs. America) "The Battle of Kasserine Pass" the Americans totally lost, Rommel was the real master.
@@OldEastGermany Yet manpower losses were 200,000 for Allies and 400,000 for the Germans.
@@OldEastGermanywe replaced our tanks. You couldn’t. That’s why we won the war, because the Germans were stupid enough to declare war on 2 of the most industrialized countries in the world.
One could argue that some Wehrmacht soldiers were indeed more seasoned thanks an extensive training programme between 1937 and 1940, but the moment these forces are spent in the East, their replacements get worse and worse. Same goes for their officers.
Now, if you're talking about just man vs. man, I have only 4 words- Don't Fight the Ghurkas.
Nice to see all the comments and likes on this show. Fab presentation enjoyed it a lot.
Outstanding podcast. Although I strongly disagree with the statement that Omaha beach was taken solely by the infantry. I suggest the USN destroyers were the deciding factor. They are rarely mentioned.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things the USN was important, but this was about addressing the soldier v soldier argument. Thanks for the nice comment
@@WW2TV Good point regarding the soldier v soldier focus. I am a little sensitive about the USN having served 50+ years ago. Served with Chiefs who had enlisted during WWII. They told me the USN never got the deserved credit for their Normandy service and they rescued the army on Omaha by coming into close to shore, supposedly against orders to engage the pillboxes. I believe there were no official USN monuments in Normandy until 2008.
@billyshakespeare17 I recall an interview with a US infantryman who had been on Omaha and was badly wounded. A sniper or two were targeting him and the medics until a US destroyer came in close enough to drop a five inch shell on them. The gunnery officer on the destroyer later told the wounded vet that they had "exterminated" the sniper nest. The wounded vet really liked his terminology.
The vet finally got better. Part of his jaw had been shot off but he survived and thrived, getting married and having a family. He said he made a point every day of hugging his wife and kids and telling them he loved them. I like that! 👌
That was Harold Baumgarten, he was a good friend@@ToddSauve
@@WW2TV Yes, that was his name. I think he was from New York state somewhere. He was shot more than once but survived! A pretty tough guy, and he seemed like a warm and sociable man, too.
whilst specialised Allied military applications were issued amphetamines for specific purposes our infantry and armoured units and half the civilian population weren't hopped up on Pervatin unlike the Blitzkrieg troops in France
Brillant presentation
I read a diary of a German infantryman. During the opening days of Operation Barbarosa they are waking up at 7 or 8 in the morning, having breakfast, and on the move around 10 o'clock! No wonder they lost.
your point is?
I had a look at the "first class" German 352nd Infantry Division.
(1) It only began forming in November 1943.
(2) It only had eight, not nine infantry battalions, one of which was an Ost battalion of ex-Soviet POWs.
(3) It had no 150mm artillery, only 105mm pieces.
"Throughout the training period there were shortages of men, equipment, and fuel and by early 1944 the division, though reasonably equipped, was far from properly prepared for front-line infantry combat."
The same could be said for the Italian soldiers depicted by English speaking historians as the worst troops of WW2. Italians had poor leadership, logistics and equipment in most of the battles they fought. In those occasions when the Italian troops faced the enemy on equal, or near equal, terms, they performed well as any other WW2 major power, even winning battles against the Brits in North Africa and the Red Army in USSR. Let's not forget that in Tunisia in 1943 the Italians lasted longer than their German counterparts.
Also, the Allies did well in Normandy, so did the Russians with operation Bragation taking place at the same time in the east.
During the Epsom-Martlet battle the Germans launched a major armored counterattack against the British salient. This was a complete and very costly failure for the Germans, but it seldom gets a mention. There's a book by a guy named Bowersock called Breaking the Panzers about this German disaster, but has the casual student you get in your tours ever heard of it?
I have Kevin's book yes, its a great one
Yes, that action is underrated.
An attack by the 9th SS Panzer, 10th SS Panzer, 1st SS Panzer and elements of the 21st Panzer, with the 2nd and 12th SS Panzer (plus the Panzer Lehr and the other 21st Panzer units) forming the defensive line against which Operation Epsom was launched.
This German counteroffensive went badly enough that Miles Dempsey didn't believe it was the actual German Schwerepunkt, and the fighting compelled Rommel to commit the entirety of his available reserves.
Von Rundstedt on July 1st (in a conversation with Keitel) said *"make peace, you fools!"* effectively Epsom and the German counteroffensive against it depleted the freshly arrived German reserve (two panzer divisions) in only a few days of fighting and sucked them into standing on the defensive.
There are several channels on TH-cam putting up diaries and books by mostly German soldiers in WWII. The ones about Normandy all talk about how they were annihilated by massive Allied artillery and air strikes before they even had a chance to fight.
The German Heer of 1941 during the summer of Barbarossa was one of the best in history but that army was mostly gone by 1944.
The GERMANS / PRUSSIANS have ALWAYS been taught that WAR was a NOBLE and NATURAL state, of preparation for the enevitable. This goes back centuries . They have ALWAYS had a HUGE standing PROFESSIONAL ARMY. Brtain never did, except , her relatively SMALL ARMY , was Professionally trained. It was reliance on political ties with countrys with huge Armies like FRANCE, and Even GERMANY, that we won many European wars, but never permanently occupied countries in Europe, unlike continentals. It was Brtains NAVY, that was where our power lay.
Love all Robin's presentations. Such a great guest
Would have been interesting to see a Division size confrontation between 1943 Heer and 1943 US Marines....
Interesting presentation. I remember being at a book presentation by Rick Atkinson and someone asked a similar question about German superiority. He simply said it doesn't matter. They lost.