The Normandy invasion actually had 8 divisions as a front, with 5 coming from the sea, and 3 airborne divisions. It was weighted toward the south, with the intent of taking the Cherbourg port. As it happened, the port was thoroughly destroyed, supplies came in over the two Mulberry ports, with only one (the northern one) still working after storms destroyed the one in the US zone.
German armor was always sloped? This said just after he said the Germans used Tigers and Panzer 4's, and Stugs! (Stugs frontal is only half sloped). ONLY Panthers at that point had sloped frontal armor!
Plus, he says the allied tanks were not sloped. HUH? All Shermans WERE SLOPED 57 degrees frontally. This guy doenst know what the hell he is talking about!
@calimar28 you sure it was 57 degrees? It sure doesnt look like 57 when you look at a sherman, but then again im not an expert on the US armor. I love the German armor, so badass looking.
@dominic150 My advice, download Red Orchestra, and then download the free mod 'Darkest Hour' that runs off of it. Its an online multiplayer WWII sim, and a lot of tanks you can drive. "WWII online" is a good one too.
@calimar28 So if my calculations are correct lets see - 51/cos57 = 93mm while 104/cos47=152.49mm approx (equal roughly to a Churchill's armor) - that sound about right? Given the Panther had 80mm at 55 deg so approx 140mm. The JS-2 1944m had 100/120mm at 60 deg so that theoretically gave 200-240mm worth of protection - again the quality of Soviet metallurgy was not exactly the best of standards in WWII - as it was cast - whilst Germans used rolled plates.
@dominic150 A fellow youtuber claimed he once tapped the glacis of a Panther - he said it felt like a 'solid as hell steel wall' - I''ll bet the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger with 150mm at 50 deg (230mm theoretically) would be even more solid as hell than the Panther, not to mention the Elefant where another fellow youtuber claimed that it was like 'tapping against a wall of solid rock' - as the Elefant had 200mm frontal superstructure at 9-12 deg so 202-202mm aprox...
The Allies knew they had inferior tanks vs the German's, that's why they needed to put 10 times more tanks on the battlefield to guarantee that they could win by swamping the Germans with sheer numbers. The unfortunate part is the thousands of allied tanker's who paid dearly for these inferior tanks with their lives. Just listen to what the British tankers are saying in this documentary, they knew they were in inferior equipment did not expect to live long, it's criminal what they put up with.
@haiherosner they also made thier tanks much lighter so they could be more maneuverable in battle. They thought they could outflank the german tanks with speed and hit them in the soft spots on the rear of the tank. but yea, i agree. i wouldnt want to be a tanker in that war.
Further, Allied AT capability, in particularly British AT guns had been extremely effective- case the Firefly. It was in no way insufficient, unless given specific circumstances- the same for all allied, Soviet, and German medium tanks.
@XxxSakura101 Yes the QF17 Pounder, US M3 90mm, 'QF 77mm', Soviet BS-3 and D10-T were amongst the better AT guns that could give German tank commanders a wakeup call.
I hate it when documentaries use popular history instead of factual history. Why must they all say how superior German armor was to the allied armor? The M1A2 was more than capable of knocking out a Tiger, and it was only in select circumstances, such as long distance that it became insufficient to do so. The M4 had better armor and slopes than the T-34 a tank this show had an orgasm over in earlier episodes.
Just imagine. How would a few Apache's, A-10's or F15E's have done then? Like in the seventies movie "The Final Countdown", when F14's "splashed down" a few zero"s. A few M1a2 or Challengers Mk.II perhaps? Just wishfull thinking.
"Just imagine. How would a few Apache's, A-10's or F15E's have done then? " pretty much the same those british and american dive bombers/tank hunters did, slaughter them(german vehicles) on sight. It´s not like the germans had at that point(time and place) effective means of air defense in either case.
@2bn442RCT Yes - the power of Tiger Phobia was such that General Monty forbade too much reporting detail on the Tiger I's combat prowess - not helped by the fact Allied units seeing a Panzer IV or a 'Panzer' would automatically think - TIGER TANK! Surprisngly they didn't have 'Pantherphobia' given the Panther had a better gun (in AT/AP than the Tiger I's 88mm KwK 36) plus offering better protection (80mm/cos55 = 140mm approx) - though the trade off was obvious; weaker side armor and weaker HE :(
@2bn442RCT THe Panzer IV had an interesting advantage over the Panther in a tactical situation; due to its smaller size and the shorter gun barrel the Panzer IV was more maneuverable in the bocage areas or closed up areas of the Normandy battlefields whilst Panther commanders had to be careful when maneuvering in the woods as the long barrel of the PaK 42 could get trapped in trees/shrubs...
caught that too. in part 3 when they talked about the impacts of the 16" guns on the battleships tossing Tiger's on their sides like toys....they showed a Panther...lol
@BlacktailDefense yeah that was a stupid statement on their part. Panzer IV was an older design, it did not have sloped armor. Tigers were relying on incredible thickness, some 100 mm frontal armor. Only tanks with sloped armor on battlefield were the Panthers, and those were few in number, not a majority. And only reason Panthers had it is because the Panther design incorporated innovative featured copied from T-34.
@Zamolxes77 Another reason (not just thicikness) was that the Tiger I tanks - inspite of their cost and working hours to assemble - were manufactured with the strict operating procedures and QA control which gave the Tiger I a Brinell Hardness of well over 250 (figures could be 280-290) - and by WWII standards that is extremely durable - the Panther had a higher figure and due to this it was more brittle despite the better frontal armor protection offered.
@Zamolxes77 Tiger I's were also made of electro-welded and Rolled plate using a general Nickel-Steel Alloy but it could employ 50% carbon 2% chromium .14% vanadium steel heat depding on models - British tests showed that the Tiger I's armor was extremely durable after they captured some in Africa in 1943, notably Tiger I3I. As for only tanks with sloped armor - there was too the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger just for a fact
@BlacktailDefense i think that the first force to make use of sloped armour was the russian t-34. the armour was sloped by design and after the germans encountered these tanks in large numbers at kursk and other battles they started to employ sloped armour themselves. first hand accounts from the time say how shocked the germans were that the russians could come up with such an advancement.
@BlacktailDefense Actually if you look at details - the Tiger I armor was not 100% completely 'unsloped' - it was just not as sharply angled as the Panther. The Tiger I's 100mm superstructure was 9 deg so 100/cos9 = 101mm while turret was 100mm at 10 deg so 100/cos 10 = 101.5426612mm roughly. But other than that yes the Tiger I's armor was pretty much just 100 or 80mm to 0 deg to the vertical - I get what you mean though :)
He wasn't 'evil', he was human. It's easy to call him 'evil' or a monster but the fact is he was just a man like anyone else. And anyone, given the right circumstances, could become Hitler.
No, absolutely not. For a person to commit such a string of heinous atrocities would require an absurd amount of conditioning. years and years. hitler had had no such conditioning, what he did was out of personal hatred and disregard for human life.
while, obviously, he was human, he was no victim of circumstance. How can you tell me that a man who ordered murder, execution, confinement, and encouraged countless atrocites is not "evil"? i challenge you to find a better definition of the term.
Where in my statement did i make any comment on my beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of a "god" or any other supernatural being?
Your base assumption that i would even argue from such a standpoint is so functionally retarded that i won't even ask you to support your statement of the "Pure evil" qualities of Hitler being Bullshit.
Next time, try to argue instead of simply making asshole claims in an attempt at provocation.
Alright, fair enough. Even though all you've done so far is label my assertions bullshit and call me a liar and a retard, i'll give you a chance.
Just prove it. Where have i lied? What is untruthful or deceitful about ANYTHING i have said so far?
Personally, i think that the brevity of your comments and the fact that they still haven't contained even ONE supported statement contradictory to my original comment attests to your lack of knowledge and your willingness to simply fling insults.
thanx for the upload of this series mate :) makes for interesting watching :)
MrDiredemon 3 weeks ago
The Normandy invasion actually had 8 divisions as a front, with 5 coming from the sea, and 3 airborne divisions. It was weighted toward the south, with the intent of taking the Cherbourg port. As it happened, the port was thoroughly destroyed, supplies came in over the two Mulberry ports, with only one (the northern one) still working after storms destroyed the one in the US zone.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
the guy at 9:00 is a boss!
spiderman1321 6 months ago
German armor was always sloped? This said just after he said the Germans used Tigers and Panzer 4's, and Stugs! (Stugs frontal is only half sloped). ONLY Panthers at that point had sloped frontal armor!
Plus, he says the allied tanks were not sloped. HUH? All Shermans WERE SLOPED 57 degrees frontally. This guy doenst know what the hell he is talking about!
calimar28 7 months ago
@calimar28 you sure it was 57 degrees? It sure doesnt look like 57 when you look at a sherman, but then again im not an expert on the US armor. I love the German armor, so badass looking.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 Yep, 57 degrees and 51mm thick. The Sherman Jumbo however had 47 degrees of 104mm, sloped.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 cool. learn something new everyday. prob doesnt look as steep b/c of how large the front end is on a sherman.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 My advice, download Red Orchestra, and then download the free mod 'Darkest Hour' that runs off of it. Its an online multiplayer WWII sim, and a lot of tanks you can drive. "WWII online" is a good one too.
calimar28 5 months ago
@calimar28 So if my calculations are correct lets see - 51/cos57 = 93mm while 104/cos47=152.49mm approx (equal roughly to a Churchill's armor) - that sound about right? Given the Panther had 80mm at 55 deg so approx 140mm. The JS-2 1944m had 100/120mm at 60 deg so that theoretically gave 200-240mm worth of protection - again the quality of Soviet metallurgy was not exactly the best of standards in WWII - as it was cast - whilst Germans used rolled plates.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@dominic150 A fellow youtuber claimed he once tapped the glacis of a Panther - he said it felt like a 'solid as hell steel wall' - I''ll bet the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger with 150mm at 50 deg (230mm theoretically) would be even more solid as hell than the Panther, not to mention the Elefant where another fellow youtuber claimed that it was like 'tapping against a wall of solid rock' - as the Elefant had 200mm frontal superstructure at 9-12 deg so 202-202mm aprox...
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@calimar28 Don't forget the JS-122, KV, T-34/85 - they also incorporated sloped armor.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
The Allies knew they had inferior tanks vs the German's, that's why they needed to put 10 times more tanks on the battlefield to guarantee that they could win by swamping the Germans with sheer numbers. The unfortunate part is the thousands of allied tanker's who paid dearly for these inferior tanks with their lives. Just listen to what the British tankers are saying in this documentary, they knew they were in inferior equipment did not expect to live long, it's criminal what they put up with.
haiherosner 8 months ago
@haiherosner they also made thier tanks much lighter so they could be more maneuverable in battle. They thought they could outflank the german tanks with speed and hit them in the soft spots on the rear of the tank. but yea, i agree. i wouldnt want to be a tanker in that war.
dominic150 5 months ago
what is so surprising that the "german" forces had nongermans in it?
the ss recrutet in every occupied country and the contingent of the waffen ss leibstandarte wich protected the führerbunker in berlin was french
the romanians, hungarians, french, italians, pols etc donated fighting contingents to every frontline
TheLordZhufor 8 months ago
Giving teenagers tanks = bad idea.
raccoonmatinginyour 8 months ago
Further, Allied AT capability, in particularly British AT guns had been extremely effective- case the Firefly. It was in no way insufficient, unless given specific circumstances- the same for all allied, Soviet, and German medium tanks.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Yes the QF17 Pounder, US M3 90mm, 'QF 77mm', Soviet BS-3 and D10-T were amongst the better AT guns that could give German tank commanders a wakeup call.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
I hate it when documentaries use popular history instead of factual history. Why must they all say how superior German armor was to the allied armor? The M1A2 was more than capable of knocking out a Tiger, and it was only in select circumstances, such as long distance that it became insufficient to do so. The M4 had better armor and slopes than the T-34 a tank this show had an orgasm over in earlier episodes.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxxSakura101 Your comments are wrong
Xiolablu3 7 months ago
i can never get enough of WW2 videos/docus. thx for this!
arpan88 9 months ago
yeah,kill all them goose stepping nazi basterds.......
(and keep your nasty comments to yourself if your defending them!)
keithehlert 10 months ago
What year was this documentary made? It is interesting to see "facts" presented that have recently been called into question.
cf80to01 1 year ago
@cf80to01
I think these series are from 1999.
Eurofighter19 1 year ago
Just imagine. How would a few Apache's, A-10's or F15E's have done then? Like in the seventies movie "The Final Countdown", when F14's "splashed down" a few zero"s. A few M1a2 or Challengers Mk.II perhaps? Just wishfull thinking.
Brera011 1 year ago
@Brera011 What about a few Harriers? :)
STOPTHEEU 1 year ago
@Brera011 well if an M1a2 showed it would be a slaugther, but with a few shots from close the Jadgtiger could send one to hell
untmortadela 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Brera011
"Just imagine. How would a few Apache's, A-10's or F15E's have done then? " pretty much the same those british and american dive bombers/tank hunters did, slaughter them(german vehicles) on sight. It´s not like the germans had at that point(time and place) effective means of air defense in either case.
DeHerg 1 year ago
I love these videos thanks so much for posting them.
thetick315 1 year ago 3
Tiffy's + RP3's rule
themightyPhantom 1 year ago
You said "pure evil (as motivation)".
I stated there is no good and evil like that. If you didn't mean "evil" [metaphysical] you shouldn't have said evil.
SeanMacCloud 2 years ago
There's an interesting goof that one of the narrators made at about 7:19;
Of German tanks, he claimed that "...the armor was always sloped...".
Back up the video a few seconds before that, and you'll see a brief clip of the Tiger I Heavy Tank --- whose armor is clearly NOT sloped.
BlacktailDefense 2 years ago 10
@BlacktailDefense Yeah that's a stupid comment. And the most numerous tank the PzKw IV
2bn442RCT 2 years ago 7
@2bn442RCT Yes - the power of Tiger Phobia was such that General Monty forbade too much reporting detail on the Tiger I's combat prowess - not helped by the fact Allied units seeing a Panzer IV or a 'Panzer' would automatically think - TIGER TANK! Surprisngly they didn't have 'Pantherphobia' given the Panther had a better gun (in AT/AP than the Tiger I's 88mm KwK 36) plus offering better protection (80mm/cos55 = 140mm approx) - though the trade off was obvious; weaker side armor and weaker HE :(
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@2bn442RCT THe Panzer IV had an interesting advantage over the Panther in a tactical situation; due to its smaller size and the shorter gun barrel the Panzer IV was more maneuverable in the bocage areas or closed up areas of the Normandy battlefields whilst Panther commanders had to be careful when maneuvering in the woods as the long barrel of the PaK 42 could get trapped in trees/shrubs...
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
caught that too. in part 3 when they talked about the impacts of the 16" guns on the battleships tossing Tiger's on their sides like toys....they showed a Panther...lol
rainingblood1488 2 years ago
@BlacktailDefense yeah that was a stupid statement on their part. Panzer IV was an older design, it did not have sloped armor. Tigers were relying on incredible thickness, some 100 mm frontal armor. Only tanks with sloped armor on battlefield were the Panthers, and those were few in number, not a majority. And only reason Panthers had it is because the Panther design incorporated innovative featured copied from T-34.
Zamolxes77 10 months ago
@Zamolxes77 Another reason (not just thicikness) was that the Tiger I tanks - inspite of their cost and working hours to assemble - were manufactured with the strict operating procedures and QA control which gave the Tiger I a Brinell Hardness of well over 250 (figures could be 280-290) - and by WWII standards that is extremely durable - the Panther had a higher figure and due to this it was more brittle despite the better frontal armor protection offered.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Zamolxes77 Tiger I's were also made of electro-welded and Rolled plate using a general Nickel-Steel Alloy but it could employ 50% carbon 2% chromium .14% vanadium steel heat depding on models - British tests showed that the Tiger I's armor was extremely durable after they captured some in Africa in 1943, notably Tiger I3I. As for only tanks with sloped armor - there was too the Tiger Ausf B Konigstiger just for a fact
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@BlacktailDefense i think that the first force to make use of sloped armour was the russian t-34. the armour was sloped by design and after the germans encountered these tanks in large numbers at kursk and other battles they started to employ sloped armour themselves. first hand accounts from the time say how shocked the germans were that the russians could come up with such an advancement.
dappadan22 9 months ago
i now not all tigers were sloped
trayjonrox 2 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Actually if you look at details - the Tiger I armor was not 100% completely 'unsloped' - it was just not as sharply angled as the Panther. The Tiger I's 100mm superstructure was 9 deg so 100/cos9 = 101mm while turret was 100mm at 10 deg so 100/cos 10 = 101.5426612mm roughly. But other than that yes the Tiger I's armor was pretty much just 100 or 80mm to 0 deg to the vertical - I get what you mean though :)
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
stupid hitler, aside from the fact that he was basically pure evil, he also managed to lose the war for germany.
Keinlicht 2 years ago
He wasn't 'evil', he was human. It's easy to call him 'evil' or a monster but the fact is he was just a man like anyone else. And anyone, given the right circumstances, could become Hitler.
Danny77uk 2 years ago
No, absolutely not. For a person to commit such a string of heinous atrocities would require an absurd amount of conditioning. years and years. hitler had had no such conditioning, what he did was out of personal hatred and disregard for human life.
while, obviously, he was human, he was no victim of circumstance. How can you tell me that a man who ordered murder, execution, confinement, and encouraged countless atrocites is not "evil"? i challenge you to find a better definition of the term.
Keinlicht 2 years ago
"Pure evil" is BS.
There is no god or devil.
SeanMacCloud 2 years ago
Where in my statement did i make any comment on my beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of a "god" or any other supernatural being?
Your base assumption that i would even argue from such a standpoint is so functionally retarded that i won't even ask you to support your statement of the "Pure evil" qualities of Hitler being Bullshit.
Next time, try to argue instead of simply making asshole claims in an attempt at provocation.
Keinlicht 2 years ago
You're a retard, in way over your head. You're also a liar. (Which is the way the stupid argue a position.)
SeanMacCloud 2 years ago
Alright, fair enough. Even though all you've done so far is label my assertions bullshit and call me a liar and a retard, i'll give you a chance.
Just prove it. Where have i lied? What is untruthful or deceitful about ANYTHING i have said so far?
Personally, i think that the brevity of your comments and the fact that they still haven't contained even ONE supported statement contradictory to my original comment attests to your lack of knowledge and your willingness to simply fling insults.
Keinlicht 2 years ago
5/5
LTDcunuk 3 years ago
your welcome!!!!!!!!
2bn442RCT 3 years ago