(2/12) Battlefield I: The Battle of France Episode 1 (GDH)

[dekippiesip]

Where is part 1??? I can't find it.

[TheCasyo]

00:36 Fightinh with Wehrmacht Polish losess were 66.000 KIA (INCLUDED 5 GENERALS and 200 high ranking officers) 143.000 wounded and 420.000 POW's. It is far from a million. If you will count the loses after 17 of september when russians stabet them in the back witch was between 3 and 7.000 KIA and 250.000 POW. (Russian to get even for the 1920 war killed almost 20.000 officers in 1940

[678CoLoGne678]

Polish Soldiers fought bravely thats for sure but I would not say that they contributed much to the German defeat.

[Omega4Productions]

If Hitler had listened to his generals, listen to their battlefield experience and let them actually COMMAND their troops, the Nazi Party could have won control over Germany longer and won the war.

[Omega4Productions]

Axis Forces: Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Japan.

Allied Forces: UK, US, India, USSR, China, Australia.

[Omega4Productions]

Difference in Tanks.

British: Flimsy, easily fall apart.

Germans: Strong, powerful, heavily armored.

Russians: Fast, maneuverable

Americans: Light up if petrol is lit.

Japanese: Powerful and fast

[HoustonGD]

@Omega4Productions Japanese tanks are, "powerful and fast." okie dokie.

[Omega4Productions]

@HoustonGD Well, I don't really know that much about the Japanese Tanks.

[psycombine]

@HoustonGD

powerfully exploding and burning fast

[TheTokkin]

@Omega4Productions Japanese tanks were the worst in every regard.

[Omega4Productions]

@TheTokkin Yeah. I've only learnt so much of WWII but I'm learning, thanks for telling me. Oh, and I'm NOT being sarcastic

[678CoLoGne678]

@Omega4Productions you know not much about tanks of WW2 huh?

[Omega4Productions]

@678CoLoGne678 Learning from Dad. He's the World's leading authority on History. I got most of the tank thing right except the Japanese Tanks

[aspiringdrummer17]

@Omega4Productions At this stage of the war the British tanks were better than the Germans and at the very end of the war the British brought out the Comet and then the Centurion tank, both of which were better than their German rivals

[Omega4Productions]

@aspiringdrummer17 British tanks were shit during the early stages of the war. Their only good tank was a Churchhill and a Comet. Centurions may have been very effective they got to see combat. German Tiger Tanks were very strong but their deadliest tank would be a King Tiger. Their Panzers were shit and their new Panthers did nothing to help them. American Shermans are also shit. Today, German Leopard Tanks would probably lose against a British Challenger.

[NearAbbeyRoad]

@Omega4Productions

The Germans could not knock out the Matilda 2 in 1940. Only 1400 TIgers were made. They were too heavy and needed a transporter to move.

[Omega4Productions]

@NearAbbeyRoad I know, but thanks for at least contradicting me. Otherwise, you know what I'm going to stop talking now. Thanks for the info.

[Omega4Productions]

@aspiringdrummer17 Sherman Tanks, why are they shit? The German nickname was Ronson Lighters. They would call them this because if you lit a spark in their petrol tank then would explode up in the air like a Ronson Lighter.

[aspiringdrummer17]

@Omega4Productions Trust me I know Shermans were shit, but the German tanks were some of the worst in the world during the Battle of France. The only reason they looked effective is because of the superior German tactics. On paper The Panzer I, II and III's were outclassed by the British Matilda II A12 and the French SOMUA S35 and Char B1

[Omega4Productions]

@aspiringdrummer17 BUT A KING TIGER? THEY WERE THE MOST FEARSOME TANK OF THE WAR.

[aspiringdrummer17]

@Omega4Productions The King Tiger wasn't around during the Battle of France

[thaygiao1]

Difference in HoustonGD's views and reality: Extreme, in the case of Japanese tanks. Imperial Japan's army NEVER held an advantage in armored vehicles, unless the combatants had *none*, such as when going against Chinese troops. Even the American-built M3 Stuart light tank (designed for reconnaissance and scouting) was overmatched to most Japanese tanks; the only reason the Allies used them and not the standard Sherman tanks was due to the Sherman's size and width in jungle terrain

[Omega4Productions]

@thaygiao1 This conversation ended AGES ago. But yes, for the last time, I ADMIT DEFEAT. GOD. Besides, maybe you could teach me a few things.

[djlagomorph]

@Omega4Productions

Sorry to pick up that old conversation, just my 2 cents here:

British: old school, divided between infantry (big, slow) and cruiser (light, fast) variants

Germans: cheap and mass-producible (1939-1941); exact opposite later

Russians: reliable and in huge numbers; can be made and used by people with little training

Americans: solid, allround design

Japanese: light tanks for jungle warfare

[Omega4Productions]

@djlagomorph Your completely right. Only thing is the Americans were the ones who saved the USSR's asses. Operation: Barbarossa was going well for hitler until the americans sold weapons to Stalin allowing him to rebuild, mass produce and finally win at Stalingrad. Also, the americans were able to mass produce tanks at such short notice. It was stated they made 100 tanks a day.

[djlagomorph]

@Omega4Productions

The great value of American aid to the USSR is undeniable, especially trucks to transport the huge but slow Russian armies.

Still I think the decisive moment was the arrival of the Siberian reinforcements at the battle for Moscow, not necessarily the victory at Stalingrad. The latter was maybe the death knell of the German armies, but the former lead to the switch from Blitzkrieg to "normal"/attrition-warfare, which the Germans couldn't win in the long run.

[Omega4Productions]

@djlagomorph The Battle of Stalingrad decided the fate of Germany from then on out. After that, it was defeat after defeat after defeat for the Germans. Not to mention that the German Sixth Army, the one formed the myth that the Wehrmacht is "invincible" was crushed during this battle.

[djlagomorph]

@Omega4Productions

Stalingrad is way overestimated, it was merely a symptom, not the cause of Germany's inevitable collaps. Really, take a look at the battle of Moscow, that's more like it.

[Omega4Productions]

@djlagomorph Yes. I didn't say that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, I simply said it ended the Invasion of the Soviet Union, full stop. I think it was the Battle of Kursk that really made Hitler and his elite commanders start shitting themselves. Fighting two wars at once, there was no way he could have one.

[teddythebenny]

@djlagomorph the type 95 was an ok tank, a flimsy 36mm cannon, with two machine guns, great for anti-infantry.. eh, dull compared to the T-34.

[djlagomorph]

@teddythebenny

Light tanks are of course not bad by themselves, but when the enemy has bazookas and possibly Sherman backup, things don't look so well. It's like in Operation Barbarossa, I'd hate driving a Panzer 2 or 38 (t) and meeting a T-34^^

Btw. do you know of any engagements in China where the Type 95 was used successfully? Should have worked well against lightly armed Chinese forces.

[teddythebenny]

@djlagomorph well, the type 95 was obsolete by 1941, perhaps it was unfortunate that most japanese tanks, were allocated last, as ships and aircraft took up the steel, in terms of equipment, armaments and so forth. Never really meant to take on tanks, a support infantry roll. And no, i don't really know of any specific roll when it was largely successful. Merry xmas and a happy new year.

[elKarlo]

@Omega4Productions Not the case at all in 1940. German tanks were not good at all, and they were still using outdated tanks. They coordinated them better, and they had their own radios. The Japanese tanks were coffins, or armored cars, with treads, at best.

[jjwaltz]

This is the message we are getting on many of the Battlefield series episodes. It is generally only for the first video. I can watch this video (2/12) Battlefield I: The Battle of France Episode 1 (GDH) but this message appears on (1/12)

"(1/12) Battlefield I: The Battle of France Episode 1 (GDH)"

This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.

[arjanv45]

Sorry for the major typos. I meant sosabowski at the market garden operation

[arjanv45]

To add something to the point of Qphilms: yes indeed they were terrific allies. But you know what the worst thing is? The poles got all the sour and bitter part. Rules by the monstrous nazi's to be then exchanged to the disgusting soviets. And you know what, i would respect the alliance if, and only if, the parachute brigade of sosbowkski would have been treated with the respect and honours by the british.. But as so called allies, the british didnt have the decency tp do that. Instead they neg

[arjanv45]

This campaign i one of the very few absolutely stunning total victories. Two almost equal armies. This kind off stand off almost never occurred again. The battlefield docs are without a match i.m.h.o.

[Bullettube]

Why does it take so long to load one video but not the others? I can understand lag, but why do three videos load and run one after the other, then the fourth loads at a crawl, and then the fifth plays normally?

What Youtube needs is a forum where uploaders and experts can come together and solve these problems.

Sorry to vent, but this lag issue made viewing this fine series a real chore.

[QPhilms]

In the end, of all the pre-war alliances, the French/Polish/British agreements figure the strongest.

Except for Vichy French and Russian Polish gov't, which never WERE really the 'French' or 'Polish' but subsumed directorships, these three countries never wavered from their pre-war alliance.

And that is truely remarkable.

[QPhilms]

And in fact, when you look at the make-up of many of the major fighting forces in the ETO, you will see many Corps of these three countries fighting alongside each other in Italy, France and Germany. Some of these Corps did well, others did less so, but the fact remains that of all international cooperations in the defeat of Germany, these three figure strongly together, and far more than the Americans or Russions who usually just wanted to control the whole field.

[QPhilms]

Actually, I believe you both are correct. I have always felt Poland, England and France were wonderful allies, in both the short and long term. They fought hard together for five years, in many places.

It's not worth going into why they failed in 39-40, nor how the situation ended sadly in '45, the reasons are well known and 'what if's' are not good history.

Ignore the bad and outmoded strategies, the shoddy politics.. the -people- still went to war for each other.

[Jastrzab78]

Second way what tha't help give to Poland maeby only Alied goverment save faces in international arena. Because if Poland alone without any help from his "ally" resist 5 weeks from 4 directions attack and hidden stabt in back from Russia....and mighty France suppored by British Exepedicionary Forces, planes and navy, attaced only from two directions rssist 7 weeks??? HELP...OR NOT TOO HELP...T'HAT IS A QUESTION....

[Jastrzab78]

"Hoever Poland geografic location and swfitnes German vitory prevened (England) from entevinig directly" Jezus Fuckin Christ!!!! HAHAHAHAHA To Poland was far far far far away and too nord Afica, India, HongKong or Singapore is so fuckin close!!!! Mighty Royal Navy is out of rench, Royal Air Force also......

[WiredDragoon]

Any British force entering the Baltic Sea would have been fodder for the crows, killed by German air attacks, mines and submarines, ignoring the fact that they would land right in the fuckin' middle of the Wehrmacht. And yes, the RAF was out of reach. Even late-war RAF planes could not operationally reach as far as Poland while confronted with, well, the whole of Germany in between. And the rest of the territory you list was actually in British possession, so of course they'd be there...

[Jastrzab78]

You forget about carriers. Why your Navy and RAF don't bombing any German cities or harbor?? Alied don't bombing Germany only dropt papper scraps. One "bombardier" dropt one big packege by one dropt . Comander say " What in hell you doing? You wan't kill sombody?!!"

[WiredDragoon]

Because, given the range and capabilities of the RN's carrier based aircraft that would have been pure suicide. The Gloster Gladiator had a top speed of 406 kp/h, the Fairey Swordfish one of 221 kp/h, and both had operational ranges of less than 500 km. And the RAF simply did not have the strategic bomber forces available at that time to make an impression that would have taken of some pressure off the Polish front.

[Jastrzab78]

Polish fighter pilots fly in combat on P.11 fighter witch had a top speed 370 km/h fly and win with Bf 109 meny times becouse that not equipment decide for victory but human spirit and fighter skils. Yours bomber planes was able to bombig Kiel or Ruhur Industry Sector but yours leders was out of honor... Simply sold Poland like Czechoslovakia in 1938.

[Jastrzab78]

"French and Brtain in line of erly guarantis declare war on Germany" HAHAHAHA dat's good wery god. You suppose help Poland wit'h arms not declarations. In previus agreement was full skill offensiwe in secon week off war from west!!

[32silvercoins]

I really wish they had at least mentioned how stubborn the Polish defenses were.

The Poles gave the Germans a real bloody nose.

[TheRingil]

Tactically, you might be right.

Operationally and strategically, it was a cake walk. This documentary calls em like it seems em.

[32silvercoins]

The Polish Airforce fought up until it ran out bullets and its airfields were overrun.

Also look at German tank losses in the battle, they were quite high.

[TheRingil]

Again, itchy details don't matter. I said on a OPERATIONAL and STRATEGIC level, the Polish resistance was a flop.

[Omega4Productions]

@TheRingil They were prepared for World War I type warfare, not Germany's Blitzkrieg

[aspiringdrummer17]

@Omega4Productions It may interest you to know that it was the British Major-General J. F. C. Fuller who first thought to use tanks, aircraft and artillery in collaboration with ground troops. The German generals knew they needed something like this in order to overwhelm thier enemy and further studied Fuller's works during the 1930s and developed it into the Blitzkrieg. Unfortunately for Fuller, the British high command rejected his ideas as being too revolutionary

[Omega4Productions]

@aspiringdrummer17 Thanks I never knew that and no, I'm not being sarcastic

[NearAbbeyRoad]

@aspiringdrummer17

"it was the British Major-General J. F. C. Fuller who first thought to use tanks, aircraft and artillery in collaboration with ground troops. "

You are also forgetting Liddel Heart

[WiredDragoon]

The campaign was over in less than four weeks, with the number of German soldiers killed in action being less than 40,000 and material losses amounting to nothing that the German industry could not have replaced in two months time. By all means and purposes, for an army as well-trained as the Polish their actual performance when faced with German combined arms doctrine was lacklustre.

[Jastrzab78]

Last Polish Army put down arms in 5 OCTOBER 1939!! Why Hitler first attack Poland not France?? Because hi know so Army of France not able to start rapid advance (hi thinking maeby France not declare war at all?). Also hi know if attack France first Poland declare war and start imeditly advance in est. And remamber Poland always is loyal "ally" and previus agrement are not only scrap of papper for are leaders...

[WiredDragoon]

And yet the war was basically over when Warsaw fell, just as it was over six years later when the allies crossed the Rhine. What did they achieve by fighting till the 5th? Right, nothing. And Germany attacked Poland because it itself was in a geographically favourable position against a French offensive, with the Rhine and the dense woodlands of Rhineland-Palatinate between them. Germany also correctly deduced that France's strategy was intrinsically defensive in nature.

[Jastrzab78]

You are wrong! Warsaw surrender 28.IX.39, hoever fight continues in Modlin 29.IX.39, Jablon 29.IX.39, Milanow 30.IX.39, Hel 2.X.39, Kock 5.X.39. Army fight because High Command dont surronded til German Forces only evaquated too France. So Polisjh goverment never, Repat NEVER surrender like Denmark,

[WiredDragoon]

So what? So they fought valiantly for what, at the time, was objectively a lost cause? Warsaw was under siege by the 13th, the Soviets attacked on the 17th. By then the war was effectively *over*! Everything after that was nothing but a mop-up action against stubborn defenders. It's like arguing about the overall effects of the Seelow Heights defense on the outcome of the fall of the Third Reich... ^^

[Jastrzab78]

You German, wonderful so tell my one. Im know many Germans and evryone olways say dat same bulshit: that Hitlers fold, Hitler this, Hitler that. III Raich are not German only Nazi so Nazi was Alien from Mars JA? WHY in your country nonbody understend this basic fact: Hitler dont kill 20 milion people only your grandpa and his friends, and Hitler give only oportunites to du that????

[WiredDragoon]

Could you rephrase that in a way where I can actually understand it?^^

[Jastrzab78]

Like Holland, Belgium, France. Poland collapsed but dont ask Axis for peace like rest of "Ally". Polish constitution allowed for exist previus goverment (legal) in some "Ally" country even if Poland is out of maps. Start thinkig what happend if Polish goverment allowed for AntyCommintern Pact with German? That give + 60 Polish Divison in German War mahine. And ofkors Polish Pilots don't defend British sky in 40. Think about that!!

[WiredDragoon]

You seem to be under the misconception that I'm British. I'm not. I am, in fact, German. I'm aware of the fact that the Polish government continued to exist in exile, and that they contributed heavily in some theatres of the war after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (like at Monte Cassino or during Operation Market Garden). I simply don't see the point you are trying to argue here?! Poland was simply outclassed in every field in '39, despite fighting valiantly. That's just a plain, basic fact.

[flysqautter]

@WiredDragoon krout 

[WiredDragoon]

@flysqautter It's Kraut. You wanna insult someone, at least do it right. :p

[Lachausis]

@WiredDragoon Lol!

[rrose1978]

@WiredDragoon I am a Polish guy and yet I can say nothing but agree here. Polish military strategy in 1930s was totally outdated and more suited to the battlefields of the Great War or 1919-21 war with the newborn Soviet Union. That paid dearly off in 1939. Period.

[reignofhope]

@WiredDragoon This greatly depends on what you mean by "outclassed", in some ways Germany was "outclassed" by Poland in 1939, really the death-nail for Poland wasn't so much being outclassed by anyone as much as it was fighting a 2 front war and being heavily outnumbered, its strategic planning didn't help much either.

[stokrotka21]

@WiredDragoon The ratio of forces was 2,5:1 in Nazi favour (in war equipment even higher) and no army in 200 years of pre WWII history ever won a war against odds of 2:1 yet the Nazi advance was halted by Sep.16 and the war would have lasted a lot longer if not for the Russian stab in the back on Sep.17. Most people seem to forget that and most of D-channel historians seem not to know that at all:P Anyway I promise you that Sep1939 was far more interesting then what's in the popular sources:)

[infokemp]

This is a very good & balanced vid.

[dedekcom]

3:11 - why political map has actual borders?? It should be map from 1940

[SShaupsturmfuhrer]

a little mistake, in the episode about the scandinavian campaign i see sweden mark in the map as finnland hehe

[LTDcunuk]

5/5