Kind of sad though, from German perspective. Although the Germans, given the circumstance they were in (confusing high command, inadequate logistics, lack of air superiority), have fought well, their stubborn defensive successes ended up costing them huge at Falais. Knocking out hundreds of British armor does not mean a lot if one finds himself encircled later on.
On the lighter side of things for the Allies, the unsuccessful British actions against the Germans around Caen helped to draw German attention (and German armor!) away from the American sector, which the Americans took advantage of once they started Cobra to break out from Normandy once and for all. So, the British efforts during July was not in vain.
@puskascat Balls'd up? It was a difficult operation granted, but it had the potential to end the war quickly. Yes there were errors, but no plan in any war goes perfectly. Look at Operation Overlord, or Barbarossa. Overall Market Garden was successful, only Arnhem wasn't secured. The British troops fought valiantly and doggedly, even earning the respect of the SS sent against them. Yes the overall objective of a major breakthrough failed, but so did many other operations previously.
@TRUExSIGHTS He must have thought it was worth the gamble, and that there'd be winnings even if the final objective wasn't reached. Yeah, it fits the pattern.
@puskascat Yeah, and taken into account how professional the German army was (even in September 1944) its not a suprise that the operation wasn't 100% successful. Operation Goodwood (mentioned in this video) is similarly regarded as a failure by many, although it wasn't a failure as most people ignore the conditions faced by the troops and so cannot understand why the casualties were high and not all objectives were achived.
The british fought and won a 'cheap' world war in terms of killed and wounded, at fairly short notice. If Montgomery was one of the reasons for that cheapness, then it's difficult to fault the man. He was obviously a genius at understanding what was strategically possible, and then performing almost like a war actuary or accountant. As he repeatedly said to his troops, his job was to save their lives.
Good videos, but I don't think it has as much to do about tanks as you are lead to believe by the titles. In a 10 minute video there's about 2 minutes discussing the tanks.
@gumper1986 Watch the previous 4 episodes. They talk about the tanks involved in huge detail and compare them. Special focus is also put upon the AVRE's (Armoured Vehicle, Royal Engineers). They really are worth watching if you are interested in this campaign.
I'm sick of the Montgomery haters, posting ignorant comments about the best fighting general in the western front. He won in North Africa and in Normandy (arriving in Paris on schedule) but because of Market Garden you say he was a failure. Fact is Eisenhower had taken overall command of land forces in France and scuppered Montgomery's original plan leading to Market Garden only being a partial success and in doing so justified his taking overall command from Monty.
@padjur Monty was a good general. He was not the best. Unlike Patton, Monty had no balls. Market Garden is always used because it was the only operation in which Monty showed he had a pair. It wasnt his fault it failed. He was always a "cautious" good general, meaning he was reliable. Most people trash him for not following tank strategy set forth by his own countrymen. Was he a good leader? Yes. Is he over-rated? what general isnt.
@dominic150 You demonstrate an ignorance of tanks or tank strategy with your stupid comments. Here is what one of his opponents said of Montgomery "(he) understood In modern mobile warfare the tactics are not the main thing. The decisive factor is the organization of one's resources to maintain the momentum."(Panzer General Von Thoma).Fuller and Liddell Hart may have claimed credit for blitzkrieg but it has its flaws as Montgomery knew. It takes brains to win a war, something Patton lacked.
@padjur im commenting on the overall capability Monty showed during the War. He came in at the right place, right time in North Africa. He was hated by a lot of the generals of the war because he was too timid. Churchill said of Monty's first offensive that he fought "Half-hearted". He was almost sacked after questioning the Allied strategy at a press conference. I was saying why most people trash him, yet you somehow misconstrue this into me being ignorant. Wanna talk tactics? lets talk.
@dominic150 I have not misconstrued anything, "Monty had no balls" and "Monty showed he had a pair" are ignorant and stupid comments to make, as his courage cannot be doubted. What you call timidity, is a determination not to loose. He understood that the most important part of any advance is the supply line and the need to regroup to avoid being counter attacked. Once his enemy was in retreat he would maintain the momentum, his of advance, the enemy's of retreat, this takes skill.
@padjur well you commented that i dont know anything about tactics. Its my opinion that Monty had ZERO balls. He didnt want a stain on his rep, counter to Patton who only wanted to win and didnt care what others thought. I understand what you are saying, i agree. However, i believe Monty to be over-rated and too timid. Monty had superior numbers against Rommel, yet it took 5 trys to beak his defences. Patton had the respect of the Germans, something Monty did not. Speaks of reputation.
@dominic150 You don't! Custer had balls but he wound up dead. Are you referring to El Alamein? It took 15 days which are normally broken down into 5 phases, Monty correctly predicted both the length of the battle and the number of Allied casualties. If you think you can displace a well led, effective Army, in a strong defensive position in a day or so, you are seriously deluded. Patton was good for operations requiring thrust and push but at a loss in any operation requiring skill and judgment.
@padjur you commented that i dont know anything about tactics. Its my opinion that Monty had ZERO balls. He didnt want a stain on his rep, counter to Patton who only wanted to win and didnt care what others thought. I understand what you are saying, i agree. However, i believe Monty to be over-rated and too timid. Monty had superior numbers against Rommel, yet it took 5 trys to beak his defences. Patton had the respect of the Germans, something Monty did not. Speaks of reputation.
Allies lost around 8,000-9,000 Tanks on the western front, because they faced superior German tanks, if you add Italy and North Africa campaigns it's well over 13,000 tanks lost in battle. With each tank having 4-5 crew members, that's almost 50,000 tank crews killed in action. It is absolutely criminal what the Allied tank crews had to put up with, fighting in inferior equipment, they were let down by their respective countries, U.S.A. and Britain, whom were not able to make formidable Tanks.
People are hyping up German tanks, yes they may have been good quality machines i wont deny that, but lets face it... The Tigers were a disaster, they were over-engineered, really expensive to build and maintain, they were, needless to say; a complete misallocation of resourses. Panzer IVs were sound machines but not numeerous enough, likewise with Panthers. In general, they were fuel guzzling, bank emptying prey for allied fighters.
IMHO Montgomery was a sub par field marshall. He did not achieve much in the face of battle . Operation market garden was a total failure and Montgomery was the brainchild. I have to agree with Genstudent about germany having the best militazry in WW2 and i am american. It is obvious that they were far superior in every aspect of warfare.
@GenStudent78 ppl say monty was overated by pointing to his main major failure, but it was also monty that drove rommel all the way back to the americans, also a lesser known fact is that monty was one of the chief architects for operation overlord. thats why during the landings it was montgommery that was in overall command. only when the allies were certain of success and there was no chance they could be pushed back into the sea was monty replaced as the allied commander.
Monty should have done this... Hitler should have done that... Cows should jump over the moon... You guys are nothing but a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks... It's too easy to criticize after the fact.
13 to 14 tanks destroyed by Wittmann plus 15 transports and AT guns, all in 15 minutes (according to wikipedia), I would say british armor was more than "a little behind"
@attila yes, you are right. That would be interessting...i think, if the allied forces did not had win those battles at least then germany would be first country faced the a-bomb before hiroshima or nagasaki. So i am happy that it end up this way. What do you think?
I've read that the Atlantic wall at Normandy was only 18% completed by June the 6th. It is interesting to think how that day would have went had it been up to 100%.
@GenStudent78 Monty was probably the best choice for Overlord and the Normandy campaign. While he was overrated by the Brits and underrated by US, he was still an able General, particulary in the slugging match type warfare. The original intent was for the Allies to reach the Seine/Loire in 90 days, the Seine was crossed in less than 75. That was done by generally inexperienced troops using generally inferior equipment against a generally well trained and excellently led/equipped military.
"Bullying'!??!" Oh-me-oh-my. Yes, that is what war is. Overwhelming mass appled at the point of breakthrough or as the German's called it the Schwerpunkt, Napoleon pointe de rupture (or whatever). Everyone used(s) this method.
Soviets would have been bogged in the bocage & all those masonry villages that are all ready made fortresses for sometime, & that happened to them in Eats Prussia.
@GenStudent78 "just look at Market Garden"? just look at El Alamein, at the Normandy Campaign, at Norway, please. mate. don't say that kind of rubbish without realising his full career.
@GenStudent78 Montgomery was a great commander market garden was not a complete failure as we gainded ground also look at africa and italy and other battles in france and you will see he was a great commander.
Too many a cup of char and spit and drag, but none of us were there to get shot at for real. A bit to much of the after-match analysis. Although it has never been admitted by the allies, the battles around Caen were in fact battles of attrition.
@christof139 I did not say they didn't. And people just like to say, "Monty's slow" or "the British like to drink tea." If the American where there the say thing would have happened perhaps even worse on morale. It's hard to believe a western army to the casualties they suffered and won. OIf course the USSR would have broken thrrough quicker and took 100,000 casualties in the process.
@2bn442RCT, USA took 100,000 casualties up till July 30, 1944 in Normandy & the Brits about the same so Russian losses would have been similar and German losses were similar.
The series of Brit attacks around Caen were not a diversion or holding operation, that was invented by Monty & Bradley after the campaign. Thsoe Brit attacks were major offensives designed to breakthrough into the open tank country east of Caen. Of course even the failed Brit attacks chewed-up German units & did prevent many of them from moving against the USA troops, but the Allied intention was to breakthrough at Caen.
@christof139 You are quite wrong about montgomerys tactics. His plans for the holding campaign fought by the british and canadians around caen were submitted and aproved by C.I.G.S. before overlord. Please get your facts right.
@soo6200, Yes, I know that & never said differently. If anyone wants to blame anyone for the plan then they should blame Montgomery since he convinced everyone it was the correct plan.
@GenStudent78, Montgomery was OK, methodical though & he cared about his troops. EXPERIENCED SS & German troops had an advantage, inexperienced ones had to learn just as inexperienced Allied units, & there were also a good number of experienced Allied units in Normandy, but most were inexperienced& learned quick. The inexperienced 12SS HJ Div. when it first met the Brits. was defeated, but they learned quick.
Not fair to condem an entire people is it? Then we might aswell say that all of the 250 million americans sucks, or that the Russians are power hungry communists, not to mention the French or other nations? Or how about British Imperialism? We need to learn from history and show compassion, tolerance and respect to our fellow man, and share the resources of this great earth for the coming generations.
Maybe the British should have sided with Napoleon rather than the Prussians. Although back in 1815 that made no diplomatic or political sense. Oh how times change.
Actually, the Brits and Commonwealth were also involved in Burma and elsewhere around the globe. Overall, the Brits did just fine, better than the Germans did in the USSR and in France 1944. You see, neither the USA nor Britain maintained a large land army before WWII, navies yes, armies no, because you had no plans to conquer the world as Hitler did. There was not anything 'noble' about Hitler and the nazis, nor Stalin.
Additionally, Hitler got the jump on everyone. He knew exactly what he wanted to do and as such no other nation had the heart to really prepare adequately for yet another World War. I find German performance to be precisely what would be expected from an aggressive nation that spent the better part of the 30's preparing for all out war. Nowt special about them.
Whats interesting is that if the allies (France and Britain) and backed up their promise to Poland, and attacked Germany in september 1939, the war might have ended alot sooner, Germany was not prepared (then) to fight both the Polish on one front and the Allies on the other. But instead, as we all know, the "phoney war" occured. Also, the state of the french army, although large, was poor, and the british were not armed or mobilized for war.
I know. I have known many Germans and served in Germany ~30-months alomost 40-years ago. Some of those Germans I knew were WWII vets, including a Panther commander.
So what are you saying then ? I say the germans were noble, the nazi's were pigs, to some extend, they had some pretty good ideas about the world. I'm not saying what the nazi's did was the right thing to do, but think about it, one country, one race, one belief. Sound prettyf fucking good to me.
Actaully, around Caen there were also large open areas that gave the Germans the advantage with longer range shots as well as bocage. In the Cotenin Penninsula and around St. Lo etc. the terrain was nearly all bocage.
The battle or campaign for Caen is pretty much a nightmare. Fighting 5 SS Panzer Divisions and Panzer Lehr, with areas of terrbile terrain with expert defensive leadership. Of course with many Allied campaigns the end tactic became bullying.
Yeah, Caen tied down most of the German armor until the USA forces broke out of the bocage in the Cotentin and St. Lo. I have a good number of good books on Normandy and unfortunately sold a couple of old and excellent books on the Heer and Waf. SS in Normandy etc.
'Bullying'??? That's what war is. The Allies brought everything to bear on the Germans.
@2bn442RCT I read in an old book called "Normandy" that the Battle of Caen showed that the Panther tank's excellent PaK 42 75mm L/70 gun with training and high accuracy allowed considerable losses in the British/Canadian tank losses - a veteran claimed to have witnessed the grisly end of a tank - whilst fiercely burning he even saw the feet of the occupants hanging out :(
the poles held on to montormel against the odds and were worthy soldiers indeed. just imagine if germany wasn't stretched over 3 fronts , it would of been a different story i fancy ( regarding the normandy campaign that is) but its all ifs and buts though!
A battlegroup of the Poles held on to a hill they called 'the Mace' because of its shape, and they nearly ran out of ammo beating off all the desperate German assaults and lost ~325 or os dead. The Poles had a large number of German POWs with them that they barely guarded, and those German POWs did not try to escape because they had had enough of Hilter.
this is true general maczek( hope i spelled that correctly) polish army held mont ormel near falaise against a determined german force, thus helping to close the gap. RESPECT to them..
Hi, yes, the 1st Polish AD held, but there were so many retreating Germans that many broke through the 1st PAD and the USA 90ID. Not to laugh, but from what I have read, there were so many retreating Germans, that the Poles couldn't fire fast enough to stop all of them, and the Germnas continued moving at night.
I disagree regarding Montgomery. Also another factor was the hedgerow country completely suited for defense. The German Army was actually the named the Heers.
@2bn442RCT Yep - SS was distinct from the Wehrmacht or for the matter the Heer. It was said SS panzer divisions for the matter were usually better equippted and armed than the Heer (not sure if thats right or not) - and in regards to Monty's Market Garden - wasn't it also the fact Bittrich's 11th or was it 12th SS Panzer Divsions were resting in around Arnhem at the time of the planning/attack and along with fierce German resistance the Brit paratroopers succumbed to the Panthers?
@HeirofGojira91 9th and 10th ss panzer div´s were in holland, far to well armoured for airborne units to defeat. airborne are basically light infantry. plus they were not told to expect 2 div´s in there battle area. even if the 2 ss panzer div´s were there to rest & rearm, they still have massive combat power, & any armour is a problem for airborne forces.
Kind of sad though, from German perspective. Although the Germans, given the circumstance they were in (confusing high command, inadequate logistics, lack of air superiority), have fought well, their stubborn defensive successes ended up costing them huge at Falais. Knocking out hundreds of British armor does not mean a lot if one finds himself encircled later on.
Waterflux 3 weeks ago
On the lighter side of things for the Allies, the unsuccessful British actions against the Germans around Caen helped to draw German attention (and German armor!) away from the American sector, which the Americans took advantage of once they started Cobra to break out from Normandy once and for all. So, the British efforts during July was not in vain.
Waterflux 3 weeks ago
MInd you, he balls'd up at Arnhem.
puskascat 1 month ago
@puskascat Balls'd up? It was a difficult operation granted, but it had the potential to end the war quickly. Yes there were errors, but no plan in any war goes perfectly. Look at Operation Overlord, or Barbarossa. Overall Market Garden was successful, only Arnhem wasn't secured. The British troops fought valiantly and doggedly, even earning the respect of the SS sent against them. Yes the overall objective of a major breakthrough failed, but so did many other operations previously.
TRUExSIGHTS 3 weeks ago
@TRUExSIGHTS He must have thought it was worth the gamble, and that there'd be winnings even if the final objective wasn't reached. Yeah, it fits the pattern.
puskascat 3 weeks ago
@puskascat Yeah, and taken into account how professional the German army was (even in September 1944) its not a suprise that the operation wasn't 100% successful. Operation Goodwood (mentioned in this video) is similarly regarded as a failure by many, although it wasn't a failure as most people ignore the conditions faced by the troops and so cannot understand why the casualties were high and not all objectives were achived.
TRUExSIGHTS 3 weeks ago
The british fought and won a 'cheap' world war in terms of killed and wounded, at fairly short notice. If Montgomery was one of the reasons for that cheapness, then it's difficult to fault the man. He was obviously a genius at understanding what was strategically possible, and then performing almost like a war actuary or accountant. As he repeatedly said to his troops, his job was to save their lives.
puskascat 1 month ago
Good videos, but I don't think it has as much to do about tanks as you are lead to believe by the titles. In a 10 minute video there's about 2 minutes discussing the tanks.
gumper1986 2 months ago
@gumper1986 Watch the previous 4 episodes. They talk about the tanks involved in huge detail and compare them. Special focus is also put upon the AVRE's (Armoured Vehicle, Royal Engineers). They really are worth watching if you are interested in this campaign.
TRUExSIGHTS 3 weeks ago
@ 1:26 a sexy German women :), firing the artillery
shanipk89 2 months ago
I'm sick of the Montgomery haters, posting ignorant comments about the best fighting general in the western front. He won in North Africa and in Normandy (arriving in Paris on schedule) but because of Market Garden you say he was a failure. Fact is Eisenhower had taken overall command of land forces in France and scuppered Montgomery's original plan leading to Market Garden only being a partial success and in doing so justified his taking overall command from Monty.
padjur 8 months ago 2
@padjur Monty was a good general. He was not the best. Unlike Patton, Monty had no balls. Market Garden is always used because it was the only operation in which Monty showed he had a pair. It wasnt his fault it failed. He was always a "cautious" good general, meaning he was reliable. Most people trash him for not following tank strategy set forth by his own countrymen. Was he a good leader? Yes. Is he over-rated? what general isnt.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 You demonstrate an ignorance of tanks or tank strategy with your stupid comments. Here is what one of his opponents said of Montgomery "(he) understood In modern mobile warfare the tactics are not the main thing. The decisive factor is the organization of one's resources to maintain the momentum."(Panzer General Von Thoma).Fuller and Liddell Hart may have claimed credit for blitzkrieg but it has its flaws as Montgomery knew. It takes brains to win a war, something Patton lacked.
padjur 5 months ago
@padjur im commenting on the overall capability Monty showed during the War. He came in at the right place, right time in North Africa. He was hated by a lot of the generals of the war because he was too timid. Churchill said of Monty's first offensive that he fought "Half-hearted". He was almost sacked after questioning the Allied strategy at a press conference. I was saying why most people trash him, yet you somehow misconstrue this into me being ignorant. Wanna talk tactics? lets talk.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 I have not misconstrued anything, "Monty had no balls" and "Monty showed he had a pair" are ignorant and stupid comments to make, as his courage cannot be doubted. What you call timidity, is a determination not to loose. He understood that the most important part of any advance is the supply line and the need to regroup to avoid being counter attacked. Once his enemy was in retreat he would maintain the momentum, his of advance, the enemy's of retreat, this takes skill.
padjur 5 months ago
@padjur well you commented that i dont know anything about tactics. Its my opinion that Monty had ZERO balls. He didnt want a stain on his rep, counter to Patton who only wanted to win and didnt care what others thought. I understand what you are saying, i agree. However, i believe Monty to be over-rated and too timid. Monty had superior numbers against Rommel, yet it took 5 trys to beak his defences. Patton had the respect of the Germans, something Monty did not. Speaks of reputation.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 You don't! Custer had balls but he wound up dead. Are you referring to El Alamein? It took 15 days which are normally broken down into 5 phases, Monty correctly predicted both the length of the battle and the number of Allied casualties. If you think you can displace a well led, effective Army, in a strong defensive position in a day or so, you are seriously deluded. Patton was good for operations requiring thrust and push but at a loss in any operation requiring skill and judgment.
padjur 5 months ago 2
@padjur you commented that i dont know anything about tactics. Its my opinion that Monty had ZERO balls. He didnt want a stain on his rep, counter to Patton who only wanted to win and didnt care what others thought. I understand what you are saying, i agree. However, i believe Monty to be over-rated and too timid. Monty had superior numbers against Rommel, yet it took 5 trys to beak his defences. Patton had the respect of the Germans, something Monty did not. Speaks of reputation.
dominic150 5 months ago
Allies lost around 8,000-9,000 Tanks on the western front, because they faced superior German tanks, if you add Italy and North Africa campaigns it's well over 13,000 tanks lost in battle. With each tank having 4-5 crew members, that's almost 50,000 tank crews killed in action. It is absolutely criminal what the Allied tank crews had to put up with, fighting in inferior equipment, they were let down by their respective countries, U.S.A. and Britain, whom were not able to make formidable Tanks.
haiherosner 8 months ago
People are hyping up German tanks, yes they may have been good quality machines i wont deny that, but lets face it... The Tigers were a disaster, they were over-engineered, really expensive to build and maintain, they were, needless to say; a complete misallocation of resourses. Panzer IVs were sound machines but not numeerous enough, likewise with Panthers. In general, they were fuel guzzling, bank emptying prey for allied fighters.
scg159 9 months ago
IMHO Montgomery was a sub par field marshall. He did not achieve much in the face of battle . Operation market garden was a total failure and Montgomery was the brainchild. I have to agree with Genstudent about germany having the best militazry in WW2 and i am american. It is obvious that they were far superior in every aspect of warfare.
popper504 9 months ago
@GenStudent78 ppl say monty was overated by pointing to his main major failure, but it was also monty that drove rommel all the way back to the americans, also a lesser known fact is that monty was one of the chief architects for operation overlord. thats why during the landings it was montgommery that was in overall command. only when the allies were certain of success and there was no chance they could be pushed back into the sea was monty replaced as the allied commander.
dappadan22 9 months ago
Monty should have done this... Hitler should have done that... Cows should jump over the moon... You guys are nothing but a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks... It's too easy to criticize after the fact.
blueskiesbob 9 months ago
13 to 14 tanks destroyed by Wittmann plus 15 transports and AT guns, all in 15 minutes (according to wikipedia), I would say british armor was more than "a little behind"
Zamolxes77 10 months ago
@Zamolxes77
American armour wasn't any better and at least the British had the 'Firefly'.
Zebedee177 8 months ago
@Zebedee177 The "Firefly" was a sherman bro. The canadians and brittish used shermans as well due to the brittish tanks having a lack in firepower.
dominic150 5 months ago
@attila yes, you are right. That would be interessting...i think, if the allied forces did not had win those battles at least then germany would be first country faced the a-bomb before hiroshima or nagasaki. So i am happy that it end up this way. What do you think?
kleofaz 10 months ago
I've read that the Atlantic wall at Normandy was only 18% completed by June the 6th. It is interesting to think how that day would have went had it been up to 100%.
Attila709 11 months ago
Seems the "specialists" who should know everything about these machines theyre tellingstuff doesnt know.
88Phobos 1 year ago
@GenStudent78 Monty made the plans for overlord!
vonkeonig 1 year ago
@GenStudent78 Monty was probably the best choice for Overlord and the Normandy campaign. While he was overrated by the Brits and underrated by US, he was still an able General, particulary in the slugging match type warfare. The original intent was for the Allies to reach the Seine/Loire in 90 days, the Seine was crossed in less than 75. That was done by generally inexperienced troops using generally inferior equipment against a generally well trained and excellently led/equipped military.
cf80to01 1 year ago
"Bullying'!??!" Oh-me-oh-my. Yes, that is what war is. Overwhelming mass appled at the point of breakthrough or as the German's called it the Schwerpunkt, Napoleon pointe de rupture (or whatever). Everyone used(s) this method.
Soviets would have been bogged in the bocage & all those masonry villages that are all ready made fortresses for sometime, & that happened to them in Eats Prussia.
christof139 1 year ago
@GenStudent78 "just look at Market Garden"? just look at El Alamein, at the Normandy Campaign, at Norway, please. mate. don't say that kind of rubbish without realising his full career.
MiketheMadness 1 year ago
@GenStudent78 Montgomery was a great commander market garden was not a complete failure as we gainded ground also look at africa and italy and other battles in france and you will see he was a great commander.
TheLloydA1 1 year ago
Too many a cup of char and spit and drag, but none of us were there to get shot at for real. A bit to much of the after-match analysis. Although it has never been admitted by the allies, the battles around Caen were in fact battles of attrition.
AUBRI92 1 year ago
@christof139 I did not say they didn't. And people just like to say, "Monty's slow" or "the British like to drink tea." If the American where there the say thing would have happened perhaps even worse on morale. It's hard to believe a western army to the casualties they suffered and won. OIf course the USSR would have broken thrrough quicker and took 100,000 casualties in the process.
2bn442RCT 1 year ago
@2bn442RCT, USA took 100,000 casualties up till July 30, 1944 in Normandy & the Brits about the same so Russian losses would have been similar and German losses were similar.
christof139 1 year ago
The series of Brit attacks around Caen were not a diversion or holding operation, that was invented by Monty & Bradley after the campaign. Thsoe Brit attacks were major offensives designed to breakthrough into the open tank country east of Caen. Of course even the failed Brit attacks chewed-up German units & did prevent many of them from moving against the USA troops, but the Allied intention was to breakthrough at Caen.
christof139 1 year ago
@christof139 You are quite wrong about montgomerys tactics. His plans for the holding campaign fought by the british and canadians around caen were submitted and aproved by C.I.G.S. before overlord. Please get your facts right.
soo6200 1 year ago
@soo6200, Yes, I know that & never said differently. If anyone wants to blame anyone for the plan then they should blame Montgomery since he convinced everyone it was the correct plan.
christof139 1 year ago
@GenStudent78, Montgomery was OK, methodical though & he cared about his troops. EXPERIENCED SS & German troops had an advantage, inexperienced ones had to learn just as inexperienced Allied units, & there were also a good number of experienced Allied units in Normandy, but most were inexperienced& learned quick. The inexperienced 12SS HJ Div. when it first met the Brits. was defeated, but they learned quick.
christof139 1 year ago
On 6:43 the waffen-SS officer looking on hit M4 tank, is in Bren Gun Carrier. Is it????
majorRajn 2 years ago 2
@majorRajn Yes it is a bren gun carrier.
FINCoHMoW 1 year ago
@FINCoHMoW Thanks
majorRajn 1 year ago
Not fair to condem an entire people is it? Then we might aswell say that all of the 250 million americans sucks, or that the Russians are power hungry communists, not to mention the French or other nations? Or how about British Imperialism? We need to learn from history and show compassion, tolerance and respect to our fellow man, and share the resources of this great earth for the coming generations.
TheTrickyFox1976 2 years ago
Maybe the British should have sided with Napoleon rather than the Prussians. Although back in 1815 that made no diplomatic or political sense. Oh how times change.
Talbot6832 2 years ago
Was this programme on TV? If so how long ago and what channel! (UK) Cheers
critch1901 2 years ago
who lost the war thou(two wars actually and a world cup) :-)
PARTYINGHARDsince91 2 years ago
Comment removed
PARTYINGHARDsince91 2 years ago
Actually, the Brits and Commonwealth were also involved in Burma and elsewhere around the globe. Overall, the Brits did just fine, better than the Germans did in the USSR and in France 1944. You see, neither the USA nor Britain maintained a large land army before WWII, navies yes, armies no, because you had no plans to conquer the world as Hitler did. There was not anything 'noble' about Hitler and the nazis, nor Stalin.
christof139 2 years ago
Additionally, Hitler got the jump on everyone. He knew exactly what he wanted to do and as such no other nation had the heart to really prepare adequately for yet another World War. I find German performance to be precisely what would be expected from an aggressive nation that spent the better part of the 30's preparing for all out war. Nowt special about them.
Talbot6832 2 years ago
Whats interesting is that if the allies (France and Britain) and backed up their promise to Poland, and attacked Germany in september 1939, the war might have ended alot sooner, Germany was not prepared (then) to fight both the Polish on one front and the Allies on the other. But instead, as we all know, the "phoney war" occured. Also, the state of the french army, although large, was poor, and the british were not armed or mobilized for war.
TheTrickyFox1976 2 years ago
Hitler had the largest balls of anyone in the world in the '30s
JAGDPANTHER20 1 year ago
"Germany = the bravest and most noble nation of Europe !! "
Noble?? What was noble about enslaving and murdering people by the millions? Poland and etc., very noble of the Nazis.
christof139 2 years ago
youre talking about the nazi's, not just the germans. And ye almost every culture enslaved people at some point.
elvee88 2 years ago
I know. I have known many Germans and served in Germany ~30-months alomost 40-years ago. Some of those Germans I knew were WWII vets, including a Panther commander.
christof139 2 years ago
So what are you saying then ? I say the germans were noble, the nazi's were pigs, to some extend, they had some pretty good ideas about the world. I'm not saying what the nazi's did was the right thing to do, but think about it, one country, one race, one belief. Sound prettyf fucking good to me.
elvee88 2 years ago
You are syaing the nazis were noble, not the Germans.
christof139 2 years ago
Actaully, around Caen there were also large open areas that gave the Germans the advantage with longer range shots as well as bocage. In the Cotenin Penninsula and around St. Lo etc. the terrain was nearly all bocage.
christof139 2 years ago
The battle or campaign for Caen is pretty much a nightmare. Fighting 5 SS Panzer Divisions and Panzer Lehr, with areas of terrbile terrain with expert defensive leadership. Of course with many Allied campaigns the end tactic became bullying.
2bn442RCT 2 years ago
Yeah, Caen tied down most of the German armor until the USA forces broke out of the bocage in the Cotentin and St. Lo. I have a good number of good books on Normandy and unfortunately sold a couple of old and excellent books on the Heer and Waf. SS in Normandy etc.
'Bullying'??? That's what war is. The Allies brought everything to bear on the Germans.
christof139 2 years ago
@2bn442RCT I read in an old book called "Normandy" that the Battle of Caen showed that the Panther tank's excellent PaK 42 75mm L/70 gun with training and high accuracy allowed considerable losses in the British/Canadian tank losses - a veteran claimed to have witnessed the grisly end of a tank - whilst fiercely burning he even saw the feet of the occupants hanging out :(
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
the poles held on to montormel against the odds and were worthy soldiers indeed. just imagine if germany wasn't stretched over 3 fronts , it would of been a different story i fancy ( regarding the normandy campaign that is) but its all ifs and buts though!
19stretch72 2 years ago
A battlegroup of the Poles held on to a hill they called 'the Mace' because of its shape, and they nearly ran out of ammo beating off all the desperate German assaults and lost ~325 or os dead. The Poles had a large number of German POWs with them that they barely guarded, and those German POWs did not try to escape because they had had enough of Hilter.
christof139 2 years ago
OUTSTANDING.
Great job.
the82spartans 2 years ago
لصق أي إلى النسخ غير العربية الامتثال لقواعد الحرب بوصفه العدو ، رفات الوحيد القول ان المروحية قد
Marcelothaiboy 2 years ago
OK, the 1st Polish Armored Div. helped close the Falaise Pocket. Long live Poland!!!
christof139 2 years ago
this is true general maczek( hope i spelled that correctly) polish army held mont ormel near falaise against a determined german force, thus helping to close the gap. RESPECT to them..
19stretch72 2 years ago
Hi, yes, the 1st Polish AD held, but there were so many retreating Germans that many broke through the 1st PAD and the USA 90ID. Not to laugh, but from what I have read, there were so many retreating Germans, that the Poles couldn't fire fast enough to stop all of them, and the Germnas continued moving at night.
christof139 2 years ago
Comment removed
EvilFingers 2 years ago
Wow, not even one mention of how Poland participated in the Falaise pocket...
RobStryker 2 years ago
cause their participation was nothing but shite!
mazarini 2 years ago
Great stuff. I'm completely addicted to these videos.
DanielMazanec 2 years ago 6
me too
HoustonGD 2 years ago
Thank you for posting
nunokawa1973 2 years ago
I disagree regarding Montgomery. Also another factor was the hedgerow country completely suited for defense. The German Army was actually the named the Heers.
2bn442RCT 3 years ago 4
@2bn442RCT Yep - SS was distinct from the Wehrmacht or for the matter the Heer. It was said SS panzer divisions for the matter were usually better equippted and armed than the Heer (not sure if thats right or not) - and in regards to Monty's Market Garden - wasn't it also the fact Bittrich's 11th or was it 12th SS Panzer Divsions were resting in around Arnhem at the time of the planning/attack and along with fierce German resistance the Brit paratroopers succumbed to the Panthers?
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 9th and 10th ss panzer div´s were in holland, far to well armoured for airborne units to defeat. airborne are basically light infantry. plus they were not told to expect 2 div´s in there battle area. even if the 2 ss panzer div´s were there to rest & rearm, they still have massive combat power, & any armour is a problem for airborne forces.
TheDaw181 2 weeks ago
What about 1st Polish Armoured Division???
GinnyWeasel 3 years ago
Thanks for the video and story
itseasyforyou 3 years ago
great series 5/5
bliree 3 years ago
5/5 real good:)
granbarrQ 3 years ago 4