D-Day: Why Mines Didn’t Work
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มิ.ย. 2024
- Why didn't mines stop the Allies in Normandy? Last year I did a video on why mines caused major problems for the Ukrainian counter-offensive. So, why didn’t German mines cause significant problems to the Normandy landings and/or beyond?
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» TH-cam Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
Wegmüller, Hans: Die Abwehr der Invasion: Die Konzeption des Oberbefehlshabers West 1940-1944, Rombach: Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 1979 (Einzelschriften zur militärischen Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges 22).
Steven J., Zaloga: Debunking an Omaha Beach Legend: The Use of „Armored Funnies“ on D-Day, in: The Journal of Military History 85 (2021), H. 1, p. 134-162.
Beck, Alfred M. et al.: The Corps of Engineers: The War against Germany. United States Army in World War II. The Technical Services. Bd. CMH Pub 10-22, Center of Military History United States Army: Washington, D.C., USA, 1985.
Harrison, Gordon A.: Cross-Channel Attack. United States Army in World War II. The European Theater of Operations., Center of Military History United States Army: Washington, D.C., USA, 1993.
Schramm, Percy Ernst (Hg.): Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Wehrmachtführungsstab) Band 7: 1944-1945. Teilband 1., Bechtermünz: Augsburg, Germany, 2002.
Ose, Dieter: Entscheidung im Westen 1944: der Oberbefehlshaber West und die Abwehr der alliierten Invasion, Helios: Aachen, Germany, 2013.
Jacobsen, H.A.: 1939-1945. Der Zweite Weltkrieg in Chronik und Dokumenten. Dritte durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Wehr und Wissen Verlagsgesellschaft: Darmstadt, 1960.
Lieb, Peter: Unternehmen Overlord: Die Invasion in der Normandie und die Befreiung Westeuropas, C.H. Beck: München, Germany, 2014.
Boog, Horst/Krebs, Gerhard/Vogel, Detlef: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg 7: Das Deutsche Reich in der Defensive. Strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943-1944/45. Bd. 7, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt: Stuttgart, Germany, 2001 (Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg 7).
Messenger, Charles: The D-Day Atlas: Anatomy of the Normandy Campaign, First paperback edition 2014, Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 2014.
Penrose, Jane (Hg.): The D-Day Companion: Leading Historians explore History’s Greatest Amphibious Assault, Paperback ed, Osprey: Oxford, UK, 2009.
Images used:
Chief Photographer's Mate (CPHoM) Robert F. Sargent: NAIL Control Number: A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of Company A, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division (the Big Red One) wading onto the Fox Green section of Omaha Beach (Calvados, Basse-Normandie, France) on the morning of June 6, 1944. NLR-PHOCO-A-7298, public domain: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normand...
John Alfred Hampton, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Utah beach defences with mine, 1944. (Teller mine), Historical Division, War Department (USA), Public domain
Ikiwaner: Braunvieh race cow in Melchsee-Frutt, Switzerland, July 2007, by, CC BY-SA 3.0
00:00 Intro
00:20 Beach vs Land
02:06 Salt Water
02:51 Normandy vs Atlantikwall
03:21 Length Coastal Area
04:41 But not all suited for Landing!
06:31 Cows
07:53 Allied Counter Measures
08:00 Air & Fire Superiority
09:53 Planning & Preparation
12:40 Mines caused Problems
13:13 Differences to Ukraine
14:15 Conclusion
#dday80 #dday #normandy #ukraine #ww2
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OOolBU2aC70/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to learn more about the German Division defending Omaha Beach, see this video: th-cam.com/video/FQOA6D4tKgU/w-d-xo.html
Will most definitely watch this. It's one of the beaches I've been beach combing the most at low tide.
Small secret: if USSS knew what's still just over the cliff on the beach no POTUS would be allowed near the American Cimetary !
You made a lot of mistakes analyzing situation in Ukraine: Russia certainly had/has air superiority, artillery superiority, and frankly has technological superiority considering armored vehicles. Ukrainians basically tried to attack with more or less obsolete equipment (Leo 2 and Bradly above everything) into concentrated layers of Russian defense (artillery, air and land ATGM, and of course mines) . Germans lacked above everything air power, and they had less artillery. Their armor was somewhat better but not decisively. Finally, unlike Russians, Germans were not able to deploy their mines remotely, thus once minefield was cleared it was no longer a threat.
3:08 Finland never was in the axis nor was it ever annexed by germany. That makes this map deceiving as the black is supposed to show germany and axis.
@@joonasnaski9513 Yeah, I know.
I took an old map and thought "that was not an ideal caption" during late-stage editing, but I didn't since I already was late several hours. I already particularly stated that Finland was not in the Axis, years ago: th-cam.com/video/XqrXS72r8eI/w-d-xo.html
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized That is an understandable mistake to make. Some newer subscribers could believe that map tho. I totally understand the situation and I appreciate you released this video when you did.
Minefields are not really meant to stop an enemy per se, rather they are meant to either slow down or re-route the enemy
Decent post 🎉
I might also add Minefields work well in concert with artillery and barbed wire but falls into the sideway when air superiority is introduced
And to cause mine terror, where not only you damage the morale of the enemy, but you also create irrational fear
I would think land mines were a relatively rational fear but maybe im just a 🐈⬛@@tapioperala3010
...help me out here...are you feeling some deep seated knowledge no one knows, or do you think you are explaining something he didn't? Because he did.
Got to admit, that Austrian mating call around 7 minutes caught me completely off guard.
😆🤣 Sürprise!
A surprise in a video about mines!!😱
I didn't mined it.
Dear MHV I am sad to inform you that I indeed am married and must politely decline.
But dang this was hot nontheless.
😉
There are two beaches here in Norway that illustrates the problem of beach laying mines.
Both were mined early in the war, perfectly documented with mine maps.
In the summer of 45 a Royal Engineers officer came to the district to oversee the demining. Everywhere else went fine, but those two beaches came up empty.
They tried prodding, mine detectors and even surface detonation to try and set them off, but nothing.
Conclusion was that the action of the sea had lifted them out into deeper water over the 3-4 years they'd been laying there.
To this day people still find mines once in a while as the sea lifts them around and wash them back up onto the beach.
Hopefully the salt water has rendered them non functional.
@@terjeoseberg990 most likely, but whenever they find one washed up they call in EOD.
@@norwegianwiking Always a wise idea to presume that any potential Explosive device is still active and a danger
Chieftain of Chieftain's hatch answered the question of how many mines does it take to make a minefield: None, just a sign. But he did not address the cow issue.
Once Nick is a General, he will address the cow issue as well.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized😂
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Have we tried fake cows in the real minefield yet?
@@pcfree4994 You want to be the guy going out in the minefield each day to move the fake cows around the field? They will probably notice the cows in the exact same place day after day.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized "Does a 6-ft Irishman fit inside a cow costume?", and "Oh, bugger! My cow is on fire!" 😝😝😝
My grandfather missed the d day landings due to smallpox but involved in the clean up. He was de-mining a stretch of beach near a fairly undamaged hotel so the officers could stay there. Saw a mine sticking out of the sand and decided to shoot it. Set off a chain reaction with surrounding mines and blew all the windows out of the building
RIP grandpa getting telling off by all the officers.
well, must say he was Effective at clearing the field, also means that either the actions of the Sea, or those laying it placed them too close to each other
@@Voron_Aggrav I checked with my mum to make sure I had my facts right “Yes you have. I believe he had mumps. But had also missed some training due to a back injury. A troop transport rolled over in the Brecon Beacons and he had a radio on his back. He was exceptionally good with a rifle so was clearing land mines on the beach. The rest of the story you know. Xx” no more details I’m afraid. Possibly a dump rather than buried I honestly don’t know
One thing to note, the Germans assumed the Allies would attack the beaches when the tide was high so they had less ground to cover. As such, the mines they placed on the coast were done such that they would be underwater during high tide to destroy landing craft as they came in. However, the Allies attacked during low tide, meaning all the mines were exposed and the landing craft could land on the beaches without worry. This meant the soldiers on the beaches had more ground to cover, but those defenses were basically completely nullified.
Of course this also means that the mines and other obstacles were effective in a way by forcing the allies to land further from the German defenses leaving them exposed to defensive fire for longer.
Whether that effect was worth the cost and effort is another discussion, but they certainly had a desirable effect even if not the primary intention.
Kind of like how people bash the Maginot Line for not stopping the Germans. It didn't stop them, but it was never going to stop them. It did force the Germans to launch the their attack through a much narrower corridor that the French could plan for and allowed the French to concentrate their best forces in their field armies to opoose that offensive. Those field armies failed, but that (along with the value of it) is another discussion.
In the end, with the material advantage the Allies had combined with the Germans having to defend a wide front (along with thr whole Eastern Front) while the Allies could pick a narrow space to concentrate their forces to attack, they had such a massive firepower advantage that (with hindsight) it is clear thay there was nothing the Nazis could feasibly do to repel any competent attack by the Allies.
I doubt that, as the mines never really were thought to work against the landing craft. Very difficult to place mines so that boats blow up.
Mines and sea water are not a good combination, and sea mines are usually meant to work with larger ships only and never produced in high amounts.
There are some reports that the infantry did lack from support of tanks on D day, as some got hit, some did sink and others have been hit by anti tank mines.
Also note, that if you`re right, the mines did what they should. They made the enemy choose different terrain.
On top, placing mines in a zone of high tidal differences is very different, the allies could assume that they would not face those as it`s difficult to hold them in place and armed.
A large part of the reason the Allies decided to land at low tide was so that after the initial craft beached themselves, they would be lifted up by the tide and could return to the fleet to pick up more men/equipment, and to let another craft land in their spot.
So landing at low tide allowed them to maintain a shuttle run of landings throughout the day.
Part of it was also to avoid the 'intertidal' defences though. One of the main jobs of the engineers on D-Day was to clear out the defences so the landing crafts would have a straight run as the tide rose.
The German defences were certainly not useless, but they were effectively mitigated.
It was the obstacles in general and not the mines specific that had the planners worried. HItting a iron or even wooden beam with a fully loaded higgins boat going full speed will damage it enough to put out of action. If It simply did got stuck. Adding mines on those obstacles only adds extra value if you intend to kill troops. The mines on the obstacles had little influence on the making of the plans. except once you start planning to destroy them. Not to mention as the video mentioned it's questionable how many of those mines would still function after even spending a couple of months in seawater. Especially if halve the time they are submerged and the other time in fully exposed in the air , sun and and. Do not mix up the obstacles with minefields.
You are directly contradicted by the video. The Germans did not place mines under water.
The sea mines had a possibility of much more disasterious consequences. My grandfather was a stoker on a Royal Navy minesweeper who had to sweep the mines before the invasion force could arrives. I believe there were something around 600 minesweepers involved which unsurprisingly worked well.
What's a stoker? It seems like what'd we call a fireman in the days of steam rail roading here in the US.
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470 Stoker is a fireman but on a ship
@@jed-henrywitkowski6470Stoker is the person who stokes
That was most beautiful cow impression I have heard in a long time
On top of the polish flag back ground for text afterwards is the cherry on top
Another factor of great importance is to appreciate how little time Germans actually spent on the fortifications, so they didn't have many specialized assets developed for the conditions on the ground. As Zaloga emphasizes in his work, the "Atlantic Wall" didn't really exist before Rommel was assigned and it was his direction that saw the majority of major defenses erected just a matter of weeks and months ahead of D-Day.
Before Rommel, defenses were mostly common infantry field fortifications managed by local infantry commanders themselves, trenches and small bunkers mostly of timber and sand.
Honestly, not spending time on the fortifications was the right decision: there was too much coastline to try and defend, and even if Germany somehow managed, there was zero guarantee the Allies wouldn't just buy off Spain and land there instead, rendering beach fortifications worthless.
But, since the overall idea was that the Luftwaffe and the Panzers would work together to fight an invasion, and this might work against landings anywhere around France, fortifications that could only buy a day or two (to confirm where the main landing would happen,) were justifiable.
Of course, the Luftwaffe was broken before D-Day, and with it, even Rommel's worst case plans, so even what little was done became pointless...
Just got off a tour of the beaches and would like to add on. It was noted by my Tour guide that one of the bunkers on Eagles' point was hit by a Sherman tank, and the concrete was still not fully set. I could see the crator where the concrete was shattered vs others that only had pockets from cannon fire.
So, some of those bunkers were really new by even just days before the landing.
@@Joseplh Good example for sure! Indeed, it is ironic that some of the most difficult defenses to break through were the old field-fortifications dug earlier in the war because they were put in by fully-trained infantry under NCOs often with Great War experience.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 You basically are hitting on the debate between Rundstedt and Rommel, with your assessment much the same as Rundstedt's. Problem is that both men were pretty much correct in their assessments; Germany had no good options for stopping the Allies from landing in France and neither man's plan was ideal, each trading one set of serious problems for another.
However, what definitely didn't help at all was that instead of picking one option and making the best effort to ensure its best chances for success, Rommel and Rundstedt argued with each other to the point that Hitler ordered them to follow a compromise plan which had virtually no chance of success.
Ironically, the real defenders for the Germans against Western Allies were the Siegfried Line plus the isolated infantry pockets holding on every French port cities, rather than the Atlantic Wall they spent years to build since 1940. The Allies broke through French coast and liberated most of France in just around 2 months, only to stuck just outside Germany borders for half a year till March 1945.
German leadership likely realized the Normandy landing was a no-win game and avoid putting their valuable panzer forces right up shores, reserving them inland to constantly engages Allied invasions, dragging out the fight in Normandy to get as much infrastructure there destroyed and give as little incentives or room for Allied commanders to divert their forces and liberate ports before their destruction. By the end of August, the road and railway were too broken, and the port cities were either too destroyed, too far or still too German to support the stretched logistic of the then-bogged down US and UK armies.
I dont know how much of a movie buff you are, but theres a pretty interesting Danish film called Land of Mine (2015) which follows a group of German POW's after the liberation of Denmark, as they were forced to clear landmines off the countries coastline. Ive been subscribed since your video on tank armour in 2016 and im only realizing now how long ago that was. Thank you for all the awesome videos, its been great.
This movie was amazing. I did a group watch with a group of gamers and It was a huge hit.
I know about the movie and some scenes, but I haven't watched it.
Thanks for joining in the first year!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Denmark is still clearing mines on the west coast 80 years later, because the were shifted by the tidals!!!
But what about the
"Sweet Child O'Mine?"
That was a good movie!
Here is another noted failure of mines. They need to be able to be triggered. At Peleliu, the Japanese placed mines (actually repurposed aircraft bombs) on the beach to destroy landing craft and they would be detonated by wires connecting them. The thing is the one thing the US Navy bombardment of White Beach succeeded at was destroying the wires needed to trigger the mines by the amount of shrapnel. It probably wasn’t that much of a comfort for the Marines landing however as they had everything else go wrong for them.
The cow reminded me of the number of times someone concocted a really tricky defense and someone else found an easy, simple way around it.
As I recall back in the 1990s when the British were culling millions of cows due to BSE, there were people suggesting they should be sent to places like Cambodia and used to sweep minefields. I dont think it ever happened and animal rights people would probably have fought any attempt to do so, but it probably would have been a viable excercise.
@@88porpoiseTrained rats were used instead.
@@allangibson8494Or Nazi POWs in Denmark’s case.
@@88porpoiseyou're absolutely right, we would have had a fit. There's a huge difference between euthanasia/culling of sick animals and driving those animals across a field full of weapons designed to remove limbs. From my perspective, using those sick animals to clear minefields is no different to using mental patients or the disabled. It's cruel and inhumane.
@@DJSockmonkeyMusic... "No different"? Do you seriously not understand that humans are more important and in need of more sympathy and empathy than animals like cows?
This is why noone takes your movement seriously.
In the UK, beach mines drifed out of position over time because of shifting sands. After the war, clearance became extremely hazardous as the minefield maps were no longer accurate, causing many casualties among the sappers.
Listening to a heavy German accented English reminds me of how interesting pronunciation is. How we form sounds and the building blocks of speech and words. Fascinating stuff. Ever evolving.
His English is fantastic, isn’t it ?
We need to interview some cows to get their opinion on how good the Moos were.
@@KnightofAges where are the cows from? Bavaria? Schwebia ? Can they understand each other ?
the cow shown in the picture is attributed as being a swiss cow
don't think swiss cows could or would understand an Austrian Mooooo
@@gregsaldi1292Much better than eastern European English accent
As a dutchman, i really like how you just skip the belgian coast at 04:00
well, the Germans merged the Netherlands and France, I guess Belgium got caught off guard ;)
yeah, I also noticed that part, it is the proper way to look at it though
3:40 That 700km number may seem large for little Denmark, but is actually just a small fraction of total Danish coastlines. They were only expecting to defend the western coast, as invasion in the internal Danish straits would be highly impractical.
There were also a lot of coastal guns that covered the tip of Denmark. The allies had to move within range and destroy that battery to get to the other parts of the Danish coast.
If you have to take out the position, why not land there too?
I love the Zaloga quote at 2:01 : "[the mines were] undermined [!]"
Good one, using the 48 star flag @ 8:00.
How many stars were there supposed to be?
@@GaiusCaligula234 The US flag has one star for every state, and there were 48 states then, 50 now. A lot of movies show 50 star flags even when there were only 30 or 40 states. It's especially common in TH-cam videos, where someone just grabs an American flag picture because they don't know about the changing number of stars. Most non-Americans and even a lot of Americans don't know or pay attention.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Ah, okay. Also - well done on 48 likes on the comment on 48 stars!
@@GaiusCaligula234 Thank you for the question -- I'm so used to it that I forget how unusual the US flag is. Other countries change flags too, but usually after revolutions or something, not just as a matter of course.
He also used the correct Canadian flag for the time, rather than the modern Maple Leaf flag.
MOOOOOOOOHH
Even my cat jumped, lmao. Now she is staring at me with a "WTAF" face.
On a serious note, most excellent work, Mr. Kast.
Keeping 380,000 soldiers in Norway is crazy. Talk about inefficient use of manpower. Maybe do a vid on how much manpower Germany had tied up in occupations in the Balkans, Poland etc?
The problem with Norway is the same reason Germany invaded it in the first place: a considerable amount of Germany's good iron ore came out of Sweden, and a great fear was that if the Allies held Norway then they're be able to either pressure or invade Sweden to cut off the supply. So once they made sure Norway would be on the side of the Allies, then they needed to make absolutely certain that disastrous situation didn't unfold.
The Balkans however is definitely somewhere where it's quite possible Germany would have been able to drastically shorten their frontline and reduce the number of garrisons needed if it hadn't been for Italy's actions pulling them into the region in the first place.
@@SkyHawk2137 I'm sure they could've gotten away with less in Norway as well. Not everyone in the OKW was happy either with how much garrisoning sapped away manpower, from what I read. Defo worthy of a video.
@@K_KaraWell you need to secure your supply lines. Also they needed the heavy for their atomic bombs project which were frequently raided by Allied special forces. So naturally they had to send more troops after the successful raids.
They had 25 divisions in France when they could have used them to capture Leningrad or Moscow in 1941. I think this channel has already done such a video on it, they had so many division in France doing nothing, or maybe I read it in a book somewhere.
Keeping those troops in Norway made sense. The Allies put a lot of effort into convincing the Germans they would land in Norway and the Pas de Calais again in a two-pronged attack and Normandy was a feint. They went the whole nine yards too with commandos doing landings on beaches and gathering samples of the soil like they did with the real landing beaches.
Great and wonderful, as usual. Tiny point: 'anchor' pronunciation at about 1:35.
Pronounced similarly to the German word, ironically enough
In terms of the training my Great Uncle was a petty officer on the heavy cruiser HMS Hawkins, when the disaster of operation Tiger occured. Where live fire was used and due to a change in timings 100s of men were k illed on the beach. My Great Grandfather didn't know and he and his friends just thought it was special effects to look realistic. They were sworn to secrecy and he never told his wife she only found out in the 80s after he d ied when his navy friends told her. However he may have confided in his twin sister (my grandmother) because for decades before it was public knowledge, whenever she went down to Devon or around that area with my mum, they would always have to go on a day trip to Slapton Sands to pay her respects.
I had never heard of this incident, thank you.
It can be interesting how these training disasters often reveal problems that might have been catastrophic for the war if they had happened in battle. Simple things like the landing craft not having compatible radio with the navy/command, or the infantry not having been trained in using their lifejackets (used wrong they would trap you head down).
Oh at long last i found this channel once again. Finally some quality content once more
10:08 At first, I thought the binoculars icon was leiderhosen.
Excellent vid. Informative as always. One tiny side note relating to Normandy artillery: Among the ships the Allies used for bombardment were a number of 'Monitors:' boats smaller than battleships or cruisers, but mounting a single oversized turret carrying equivalent guns. I don't know if these were included in your total under another category, or not.
There is an example of a small monitor at Portsmouth historic dockyard alongside HMS Victory, HMS Warrior, the Mary Rose etc. HMS M.33, 580 tons, 2 6 inch guns, launched 1915. Didn't see service on D-Day, she was long out of front line use by then but did see service during the Dardanelles campaign of WW1.
HMS Erebus, a rather larger monitor also dating from WWI did see service on D-Day, providing fire support to Omaha beach with her 2 15 inch guns.
Monitors seem to have been a peculiarly British concept, ships designed purely to provide naval gunfire support to land forces.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Thank you for the info. These ships are fascinating to me because they look so 'unofficial,' like a child built a model of a destroyer and stuck a battleship turret on it.
Because the allies hit the beaches with everything they had artillery,air bombing,hobarts funnies, mines work to deny small units without engineer support movement,when a attack is at brigade level or larger then all the support kicks in to remove obstacles (mines,wire ,bunkers)
Good point.
Excellent. Very informative.
In an exercise I did in the Australian Infantry each platoon in the Battalion had to recon and attack a dug in defensive position. There was a marked minefield on either side leaving only two safe ways to attack to position. There were actual fake mines that puffed blue smoke if you set them off and they were set up in a real minefield layout. Most were jumping jacks so anyone within 50m of one going off was classed as dead. We were the last platoon to attempt it and no platoon had been able to take the position. Our platoon commander noticed they had concentrated most of their defences on the 2 safe ways in and much less on covering the minefields. So he did what no other officer did and planned an assault through the minefield. By the time they realised we were there we were almost on top of the position and starting to jump into their trenches. NOT ONE soldier hit a mine!! They thought there was no way anyone would get through that many mines. We had only one casualty and wiped out the platoon that was defending it!! Was a good day!!! A similar thing happened in the Falklands war. They thought no one could live through a minefield that dense and when the English attacked through it they didn't even open fire until it was too late. No one hit a mine at all!! They can be catastrophic but can also be useless, that's why you still have to cover all obstacles with fire!!
That mooing at 7 was more effective than a fake minefield!
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
There are still a few training obstacles in the water in Ft.Pierce, FLA and a Navy Seal/UDT museum which has info and exhibits on the WW2 & later amphibious assault training.
Many thanks for another excellent video.
Glad you enjoyed it
Whadis in Afghanistan were full of mines and UXO, is is amazing how erosion moves stuff and mines have to be laid in uncompacted soil - you don't want to be competing it down once you've put them in the ground!
Great sound effects for livestock in this video. 5 stars, would recommend.
Brilliant video as always, may I suggest you make a “mines: one time use” t-shirt. Loved that graphic. Thank you again, well researched 👍🏻
Every ship is a minesweeper once.
I love that Swansea pronunciation, that caught me as off guard as Normandy 🤣
Thanks for the interesting video, my dude.
Great video! Crazy to imagine looking at the ENTIRE COST and being like, welp we gotta defend this somehow. Obviously an impossible task, and one that would need a lifetime to get done, properly.
"MooOoOOohh" - Military History Visualised, 2024
In Korea, where mines are laid near rivers and creeks, when the creek overflows, they often move mines around. It can be a bit of a headache to wake up and see a few not-so-friendly but stupid mines not where they should be, to say the least.
Interesting video.
When you use slave labor to build your stuff, you pretty much can expect that nothing will work properly.
Authoritarian forces cannot comprehend that even the powerless will resist in ways they cannot register on a tactical or strategic level
A lot of obstacles were emplaced by German soldiers on Omaha. But yeah they used forced laborers too all along the Atlantic Wall
Who would have thought. People with little to nothing to lose or just in it for the money will do bad work. Slavery never works.
"Quantity is a quality of its own"
@@sthrich635 stalin and pinhead are besties it seems
Good topic
There were times when the Germans planted the mines under the snow.
My dad served in WW II Europe, where he recalled seeing a gentle hill that was littered with mines that became exposed after the snow melted.
Good video. Bailey bridges and obstacle-bridging are mentioned here. Perhaps the German versions of these modular bridges, and their river-crossing operations in general, would make a good subject for a further video?
Agreed. The Germans should have definitely invested more into this stuff than they did. The Operations Room did a series about the Battle of the Bugle and you could do a drinking game every time the narrator mentions that the German advanced stopped due to a bridge not supporting the weight of their tanks or being blown by the Allies.
I’m really glad you mentioned the effect of salt water on the mines and them being cheaply mass produced equipment. I’ve read multiple accounts of tellermines on poles failing at D-day. That is, failing to detonate. Salt water would have really affected them, especially some of the older T.Mi.35 fuzes, and primers they used. Those were by no means waterproof and the older ones had those really thin wire springs to hold the cover plate in place.
very interesting thanks
I remember once reading about how bomber pilots when doing a recon and bombing mission along the French coastline in ww2 prior to D-Day noticed a few bombs had seemed to result in loads of subsequent explosions in a line along the coast in shallow water. Fearing a potential new secret beach-clearing mine developed by the Germans, a recon team was sent in by boat to recover whatever this mysterious weapon might've been. As it turned out, it was a series of old mines along the coast that had started rotting away, making them all vulnerable to detonation from relatively minor shock to them. So there was no secret new mine, it was just rotting old ones.
Now it's been a long while since I read the book that was in, so I might be misremembering something or getting some details completely wrong.
I Have a question, Is there any sources you use that show when ammunition was introduced like the M331A2 Sabot shot, I'm researching ammunition s for a personal project but I can't find anything about the introduction dates for munitions. I'd appreciate any help/sources you could offer.
The Norwegian coast is so long there was no way the fiords could be comprehensively mined. How far inland should you go?
"Several battleships" - just one battleship is a nightmare when the enemy can use it (largely) undisturbed for fire support. Count 8 15 inch guns. One 15 inch shell can litterally blast tanks aways and turn them on their heads (Drachinifel has an image of a Panzer IV or Panzer V roled over on his ships vs. tanks video...or coastal bombardment). The firepower discrepancy was massive, huge and insane. So when the coastal batteries were silenced (and they were so during the first day, if I remember correctly...at least most of them) within at least 10 miles of the coast any German unit was sooner or later in a situation were it could just be obliterated by indirect fire. What must not be fogotten is the effect on morale. It is safe to say that not only killed and wounded were casualties after an intense bombardment, there were surely at least some demoralised or "shell shock"-incapacitated. So yeah...the Normandy invasion was a case of big time overwhelming by firepower superiority.
Another (minor) aspect. Even if the Germans were able to direct indirect fire to the enemy...and there is one big if: If you are the spotter/soldier calling in the strike/the pilot making the attack. What are the targests you are most likely to chose. I think that most would be biased towards tanks and large weapons - and be it just for the fact that you spot them more easily. To pick out combat engineers working in pairs or as groups of three is less likely. Also since by the rule "fire attrackts fire" they are highly unattractive (not meant as an astetic judgment on the individual soldiers, they are most likely handsome young men with very skilled fingers)
Just for future reference, and I admire your ability with English as its a pain to learn (and your English is far better than my pigeon German), the CH in Anchor is (confusingly) a K sound. An-Ker. And Swansea is "Swan-zee". Again, place names are confusing (try Leicester, Gloucester or Bicester!). Just thought you'd like to know, as if no-one picks us up on these things we never learn :)
Keep up the good work
thanks, I actually know how to pronounce Bicester, since David Willey told me in 2022 for the We Have Ways Fest.
About Swansea:
I read the word, I thought, I probably got that wrong, saw that it was in Wales and knew I definitely got it wrong and it would be useless to even try.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Wales is indeed a place of very odd names!
Interesting work! Idea for a future video: how does terrain, such as a beach, affect artillery and bombs that impact on the terrain?
speaking of the mines lining the atlantic coast of europe, have you done a video discussing the demining in the post-war period? the film "Under Sandet" was pretty compelling.
That moo caught me so off guard lmao
Please, narrate a children's farmyard book with all the animal noises.
TY 🙏🙏
13:13 the technical tern used for most, if not all minefields would probably be "dilemma", not "problem".
A problem is a task, that has to be resolved, whereas a dilemma is a choice between multible none ideal tasks/problems.
Since minefields are generally considered area denial weapons. Used to deter the enemy of using the obvious route.
Or improve a defensive position.
Minefields generally don't have to be crossed (problem).
But rather the enemy has to decide whether to cross a minefield, or to go around it. Both options come with their own problems.
Side note: I've actually crossed old Soviet minefields (Anti-Armor) in Afghanistan, without clearing equipment, as it was considered safer then the alternative routes. Because of the IED thread, and subsequent ambushes.
In this dilemma, the 30-40yo minefields were treated like any other natural obstacle, that presented problems for both sides. And sure enough, by robbing the enemy of the ability to chose time and place of ambushes. We had no issues reaching our objectives, despite hitting multible mines in route.
Not my fondest memories, but neither was the constant risk of IED's.
At least here, we knew exactly what to expect, including not worrying to much about ambushes.
Mentally shitting your pants, is something you get partially used, to after a while.
It might be prudent to mention. That a lot has happened since these minefields were laid. Partial clearing. Soil erosion and shifting. Mines becoming none functional. And the like. So this was in no way as dangerous as when everything was laid out. Still, at least the ones we hit, still worked😒 The worst injury in this anecdote was, a gash in the chin, on a top-gunner, as his M2 jumped in his face.
If you're going to be technical then you need to be precise which means you need to say dilemma means two, not multiple. Although two is multiple multiple can also mean three which would be a trilemma not a dilemma.
First❤❤ and thank you for this video
I've been told that in the DMZ in Korea, many of the roads and valleys around the JSA have been demined. However, occasionally mines will "shift" from the still mined hills, into roads and fields. This is, in fact, a problem.
It is mined boggling how many people underestimate or overestimate the effectiveness of mines. The answers lies somewhere in between.
Not to mention if a storm blows in and causes storm surge and extreme high tides and beach erosion.
I never knew they used precarious naval shells as mines, that’s quite a good adaptation
Small mistake a 6:30
Many artillery rounds such as the 270mm French mortar round were hanging on the cliffs by 2 ropes. The shortest was holding the shell, the second attached to the fuze.
Cut the first, the shell explodes at mid height.
Also, the rollerminen was not a shell but a teller mine enclosed in concrete. For mor details on how they were built:
th-cam.com/video/CMYEx4hEA3g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=OhDtAaOKqc-jOahE
Thanks for sharing this, very cool. Wish the guy wasnt showing off messing with UXO though.
@@JamesGrim08 For some reason YT seems to be deleting some of my comments.
Jean is a retired Navy EOD & a chemist. All the concerns you (rightfully) expressed are dispelled (though in French) in the description of his video.
"One was simply MOOOOOOOOOH" hahaha nice :)
“Soldiers tend to get ‘sticky’ in minefields”
It also helped (the allied side) that anti-tank weapons were a lot more primitive (no drones, no anti-tank missiles, no helicopters) and artillery was a lot less accurate and short ranged (and no specialized anti-tank munitions like cluster rounds etc).
As a result an allied mineclearing efforts (on foot or using equipment like the Sherman Crab) could operate relatively undisturbed.
Not to mention that anti-disarming features were a lot less advanced. A Sherman Crab didn't have to worry about PTKM mines.
Good question, they placed em in the wrong place, the germans should have chosen Normandy instead of the Netherlands coast to place mines.
Hahaha…top comment!
I almost dropped my phone when I heard the cow impersonation. 😅
My grandad said he saw several things detonate as the landing craft came in but none of them did enough damage to stop the landing craft.
Lol that mooooo definitely got me 😂
Did not expect to hear mooing, but I'm not disappointed.
Could we get the mooo sound as a alarm clock?
the thing with mines is that they aren't ment to be an impenetrable wall, they're ment to hold an advancing force for just long enough so that a main force can arrive
while in the meantime kill off some of the enemy forces, creating some extra attrition
Those flail tanks are a mixed blessing because they throw mines around as much as they destroy them.
They are not meant to just destroy the mines, flail and plow tanks can just move mines aside to clear a path - most have a gadget on the rear that plants flags to indicate a cleared path for following forces.
Well the idea was to stay behind them, so shouldnt really be an issue
Good video,.
Special thanks for using the historically correct Canadian flag.
As Dietl or some other notable said ( I don;t remember exactly), 'We took Norway with a corps, but we had to defend it with an army'.
Former artillery man here. So mines are used to slow down infantry columns so as to give the gunners time to really open up on them.
There are two kinds of people: artillerymen and targets
7:00 That is not getting enough attention in the comment section xD Great video as always BTW
Mines aren't there to stop a enemy, they're there to either force the enemy to advance quickly into killing fields, or to slow down a enemy forced to clear a path through the mine fields giving you time to reposition to counter them. Also a third option is to slow down a enemy while you retreat, giving you time to get away and or set up new defensive positions.
Okay, hold up. I never considered that a mudflow could just... Pick up landmines and carry them away.
Imagine waking up and discovering the world has seen fit to pick up a bunch of landmines and dump them by your front door like a cat with a half-dead bird.
Why?
Short answer: cows.
Long anwser: it's complicated.
Oh whew. I thought you said "mimes". I don't know anything about mines.
Simple maths and coastlines don't go together. Since the the coastline paradox makes the maths tricky for cartographers. Your fractal dimensions are based on 100 km units. Norway has 2500km of coastline, you say. The Kriegsvermessungswesen had their work cut out for them ; by using a 50km grid the length increase by 20%. To be clear units of 100km just make an abstraction of Fjords. To account for such complex features, the official length was recalculated in 2011 as 100,915 km, including fjords and islands. Without islands, the length is a still impressive 28,953 km. Which is almost 6 times longer than France 4,853 + 451 Netherlands at around 4,900 km total. In your calculation they are of similar length.
Vechile and anti personal mine’s are diffrent like their target too 😊
I’d love to see an analysis of “Was Norway worth it?” I realize Germany needed the Swedish iron and that came through Norway and down via the North Sea. But given the cost of occupation, might it have been cheaper to just find a railway effort to send the iron through Sweden and the Baltic?
Sorry, no, because the Baltic Sea freezes over during the winter, and the distance between Sweden and Germany is too far to drive on the ice.
It's the "wrong" question. There were a lot of places to occupy the germans did not plan in the first place. Norway was a race against the British, Denmark was taken to get faster to Norway, all the Balkan states were a clusterf***, Greece was - thanks to Italy - a shotgun wedding, North Africa the same.
@@michaelbourgeault9409 The sea route from Malmö to Lübeck is free of ice year-round.
@@chonpincher During the 1st half of the 20th Century the Swedish ports with the capacity to handle the German orders for iron ore were frozen solid during the winter months. The remaining ports which did not freeze did not have the capacity needed to pass the required amounts through. iirc Swedish iron ore still goes out through Narvik.
The US only used DD tanks at UTAH and OMAHA (most of whom were swamped) and declined the offer from the British of 79th Armoured Div assets.
While the DD were the big one, it wasnt rhe only one. The next most obvious one being the Sherman Crab that the US used in Normandy.
They also had established units for the M3 based CDL. But I am not sure if they ever saw combat use.
And most of the other prominent Funnies were based on British tanks. The US, for very valid reasons, didn't want to bring a limited number of Churchills or whatever else into front line service no matter how great the AVRE or ARK was.
The US only landded on UTAH and OMAHA, so wouldn't have used them anywhere else. Canadians landed on SWORD and British landed on GOLD and JUNO.
However, the first people on shore at Omaha on D-Day were US tankers.
Ideally the DD tanks were supposed to have launched a maximum of 4000-6000 yards from the shore, depending on the weather conditions. As the weather was not ideal, closer would definitely have been better. Unfortunately the US decision makers on the ground decided to ignore this. The commanders on the scene decided that the advantage the tanks could provide on the beaches justified the risk of launching the tanks into the rough seas so far out. Consequently around a dozen men in the DD tank founder and unfortunately lost their lives (numbers not exact), but compared to the casualties the British tank crews of the 78th, who successfully landed their DD tanks on Gold, Sword and Juno beaches, or the US infantry on Omaha, this could be considered good odds.
Tanks of the 741st Tank Battalion knocked out 88's in WN62 on the west side of Calleville draw. 741st also assisted in the penitration of St Laurents draw. Tank of the 734th Tank Battalion (in conjunction with Naval bombardment knocked Wn72 in Vierville draw.
It's suggested that all the DD tanks on Omaha beach subsequently sank before reaching shore. However, 5 DD tanks of Co B reached shore at 06:30, two swam ashore and three DD tanks (which were not launched into the waves too soon) arrived on LCT. Out of 56 of the tanks in assault Group O-1, 16 landed successfully landed on Omaha. Tanks landed on dog green and dog white and an LCT landed on dog red.
Try researching your history rather getting your history from watching 'Saving Private Ryan.'
@@anvil5356 Before being all snarky, maybe reread the post and think about it critically. They clearly meant that the DDs were the only Funnies that the US used at Omaha and Utah.
Also, you are wrong because the US also used DD tanks in Operation Dragoon (they didn't specify Normandy).
@@anvil5356 No idea if that's directed at me or not, but as a serving officer I don't base my professional knowledge on Hollywood films.
@@anvil5356 I mean good info, but it wasnt worth you being a dick about it. Go outside and touch some grass.
is there a what if scenario where the landing failed? had the allies tried again? But maybe to late to prevent russia get most of europe? So it's a interesting cold war scenario also? Would 'Operation Dragoon' take place if DDay failed?
its all about weight
Imagine for an instant a bird landing on a Teller Mine.
BOOOM !
It would have to be a bloody big bird. Ostrich maybe?
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 It's weight sensitive ?
@@Sombre____ Yes, it's designed as an anti-tank mine not anti-personnel, so there is a minimum pressure needed to set it off, I think it's around 200lbs?
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Ha ok, my bad. My joke doesn't work sadly.
👍👍
Mines... Bring up the Grand Panjandrum!
4:00 just a minor nitpick maybe draw a line with a certain colour to highlight their location, you and I know what we're looking at, and what you mean but there might be those we aren't that easy with the geography side of things,
Finland was not part of that, but there where plenty of german soldiers in lapland area where they tryed to go to russia trough lapland
@MilitaryHistoryVisualised Swansea is pronounced Swanzee, just an fyi
80th anniversary this year
Came for the mines. Stayed for the acurate representation of animal sounds :)
German improvised mines were much better than the Apanese equivalent. I think I remember from Slim’s that the Japanese used a mine that was a covered foxhole that hid one soldier, one hammer and one artillery shell.
Moo indeed!
In English the ch in anchor is pronounced as k so as if spelled ankor, and I think you also mispronounced Swansea, it should be as if spelled Swansee. I hope this helps your already very fluent English.
I not sure if the video made it clear enough how much sandy beaches are in constant flux. Storms can strips of a meter of sand in a matter of days And that's right up to the coastal defense system, be it sand dunes or sea dykes. But sand can also be deposited by tides and storms. How do you makes sure a mindfield stay s in place and function as the ground itself can literally be stripped away. or have a couple of decimeters of sand on it deposit onto the mines. Only if you're sure an invasion is imminent the mining of a sandy beach makes sense as those mines will not stay put. And unless you got an extremely lucky information leak the Germans simply did not have time. The only way for sure is when the armada is pretty much already on the coast. As as they had to place by hand, it simply is not a realistic option. You cannot sent people out onto the beach when a naval bombardment is about to begin.Remote mining was not on the cards.
So yes the Allied soldier needed to worry about a lot of things that could kill them on D-day. But hidden mines on the beaches themselves was not one of them. Only when they got of the beach into areas protected from sea became it a danger. The minefield were used to block way inland from the beach and to guard the flanks and rear from the fortifications. But the fortification which were build right up to the beach, could not have a big minefield in front of them. Probably by the point you might start thinking of placing mines in front of your bunkers, the mines would have little added value s the enemy would be to close by the time they would encounter them. A box of hand grenades would then be more effective.