Poor general Billote, the Germans destroyed his reputation in 1940, and now in 2019 his name's pronunciation is also destroyed, by an Austrian youtuber ;)
I don't really know why he butchers Billotte's name. That name could be pronounced like the two "ls" in "Brille" (glasses in German) and it would be more correct.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized: Well, I would suggest that someone to take a French pronunciation class as that "sch" as in Bischoff, is definitely wrong.
They learnt it, issue was its officers and the lack of radios. Due to fears of communications being monitored by Germany considering the enigma thing And its officers after doing a military exercise regarding tanks moving through a forest akin to the ardennes, decided to ignore the lesson
@@filipeamaral216 Budget and political constraints, it is hard to overemphasis how screwed up French politics were. About the same is Italian, but they didn't put a dictator in charge to try and fix it all (which really only fixed the issue of disagreements, not improving the situations themselves). At the end of the Great War they were on their 41st Prime Minister (actually their 32nd for a second time, but I am being lazy with the maths) and 10th President. At the end of the Third Republic they were on 57 (which is Petain) and 15, which is not even including that some had multiple but non consecutive terms, Daladier for instance was Prime Minster on three occasions, as was Chautemps, Laval and Blum were both twice, etc. On average a Prime Minister lasted for less than a 6 month term, which is why they eventually had the government disbanded and the Fifth Republic. This did effect the military, de Gaulle wrote a treatise on a new, professional and mechanized army, Blum saw this as an assault on democracy as there was a concept that a large, standing professional military could potentially cause a coup. Same idea the Americans had, which is why they specifically wrote the 2nd Amendment btw, the militias were not to defend against the Brits, but to give the states their own militaries to stop the federal Continental Army if it came to that, although they also largely disbanded the Continental Army so that it couldn't. Lasted until the largest American loss to a Native American force, then they realized that militias were pretty shitty. Washington addressed part of the first State of the Union at that.
Your English has gotten much better since you started, just like to congratulate you on that. It is such easier to understand you now than in your 2016 videos when I found you
Is there in a case to make Arras one of the most decisive encounters of the Second World War because it leads directly to the halt order, the evacuation from Dunkirk, and ultimately the ability of Britain to continue fighting the War? A small action with almost incalculable consequences.
The "other German division" was SS Totenkopf, (not yet the panzer div, recruited from Camp Guard scum) who ran like rabbits & received much criticism They showed far more spirit the next week murdering Ninety-seven British POWs in Le Paradis massacre en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
Prior to Arras, they had conducted mopping up operations, collecting French prisoners near Cambrai, except the 200 French Colonial troops that they also murdered
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was their presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely Montgomery. Patton had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!
This in interesting in that it makes sense but I've never actually compared Montgomery, Romel, and Patton at the same time and also leaving the sometimes immature rivalries aside. Hmmmm...thank you!
The division had some worse days in Barbarossa although by then Rommel was no longer in command, having moved on to North Africa. The 7. Panzerdivision had 265 tanks just before Barbarossa, and by January 23, 1942 it was down to nine. It had 9,000 killed and wounded during this period.
Tanks used by the British, during the Battle of France campaign, were: Vickers Light Mk.VI a Vickers Light Mk.VI b Vickers Light Mk.VI c A9 Cruiser I A9 Cruiser I CS A10 Cruiser II A10 Cruiser II CS A11 Matilda I A12 Matilda II A12 Matilda II CS A13 Mk.I Cruiser III A13 Cruiser III Mk.I CS A13 Mk.II Cruiser IV A13 Mk.II Cruiser IV
I recall reading an account of the battle written by a British soldier in one of the Matilda tanks. Apparently, they were ordered to maintain radio silence as they moved up to the start line so as not to alert the enemy. This meant they could not test their radios before the battle which resulted in many of the tanks being out of contact at a crucial time . This identifies one of the problems facing the Allies - they just did not have the luxury of time to learn from their mistakes and put things right.
I think the thing of running the AT guns over comes from the fact that only 15 Matilda 2s were present. The much more common Matilda 1s were armed only with 303 machineguns and their only hope to knock out an AT gun was to run it down. For the smaller number of Matilda 2s there is plenty of accounts elsewhere in the war of shooting 2pdr solids through a gun to make it inoperable. Although I do admit that this is usually in the case of much larger German and Italian weapons and it's probably easier to run over something like a PAK36 than to be confident of hitting something important on the tiny gun!
I recall seeing a claim, long ago, that the A12 Matilda II, along with the likes of other tanks such as the Char B1 and KV-1 were the inspiration for the creation of the Tiger, how correct is that? Also, in regards to the A11 Matilda I, there's a fantastic part on the excellent 'War Walks' series by Richard Holmes where a BEF veteran of Arras goes over the A11 and gives his opinion, needless to say he doesn't rate it highly!
nope, the Tiger was originally the "DW" Durchbruchswagen, like nearly everything it was based on pre-war designs. Of course, meeting various threats etc. accelerated the development and lead to their continuation.
Tiger looks identical akin to a bigger sized version of a Pz Mk III. The Tiger was the next logical step in tank design for the Germans. They had all ready plans and designs called DurchsWagen, based on the Grosstractor prototypes. Panther tank was built out of the blue as a response to T34 etc.
Huh, you didn't repeat the misconception that the battle of Arras was a counterattack designed to relink with the lines to the south, something Wikipedia claims was the purpose. The operational orders had the British units sort of going in a circle around Arras and then a short line in an east direction once south-east of Arras, something not consistent with trying to reestablish connection to the south. The French did propose an idea of counterattacking to reestablish connection with the British providing flank security while the French tried to push south, but Lord Gort didn't have confidence they would do so, and they didn't, so I think the British plan was just to inflict some casualties on overextended units.
The Matilda 2 was not underarmed for 1940 for 1942 when you have tigers and up armoured panzer 3s and 4s yes but in 1940 the 2pdr Anti Tank gun was one of the best going bigger than most European anti tank guns that were only around 37mm it was able to beat any German tank at the time the issue was that Britain didn’t seem to use any tanks with Some howitzer which would have allowed them to have a good AT tank with also a close support variant allowing you to target the infantry and the tanks the queen of the desert was one of the best tanks of the war for its time better armoured than anything it would face faster than the French heavies and better crew layout with the 3 man turrets so it’s actually a really good tank
There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced. The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
It had a decent AT gun for its time but nothing more.This is uneasy to find the accurate data about it because under one name you can find all models developped during several years.It is very common for aircrafts so you can have german or british planes from 1940 with 1942 or 43 performances...The version used in Arras was extremely slow,definitely slower than the B1 bis with poorer range and it's frontal armour was thicker but no more effective after test reports.French(and (soon after?)Soviets)used some innovative welding techniques which permit to spare on weight without diminishing the resistance.
good overview, yes, there's a good argument for saying the Matilta 2 was the best tank anyone had in 1940, able to defeat any other tank's armour but immune to any other tank's main gun, three man turret, coaxial mg.
„You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion.“ - Julian Assange
There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced. The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
@@ULTRA_2112 it was no different to its contemporaries in that regard, the 37mm of the German tanks has similar limitations on HE effectiveness. Even the 50mm was not great with HE. The 2pdr's bad press came about from it staying in service a lot longer than it should have AND the tactic of the DAK of luring the British tanks into AT Gun ambushes where the lack of effective HE became an issue. In terms of its intended use the 2pdr was a gun equal to and in many cases better than its contemporaries in 1940.
From the British side, the general breakdown in communication caused by the speed of the Wehrmacht's advance left the attack's objectives unknown to the commanders in the field. The original instructions given to General Franklyn was to relieve the garrison south of Arras, but Ironside changed this to a more ambitious combined attack with the French to pinch off the German salient. But this information never got to Franklyn. Similarly, General d'Astier de la Vigerie of the French Airforce received orders to support the British attack, but was sent no details to work with, and found himself unable to contact the First Army HQ or the RAF attached to the BEF; French recon aircraft went up, but the Luftwaffe prevented them from getting close to Arras until 4 pm. Worse, both the British attack going south, and the French attack going north, were unaware of each other's actions, and even managed to occur on different days. In the end, both attacks were carried out with fewer men and machines intended, as no where near as many could be assembled in time to carry out the attacks.
Who cares about Arras? No less the then transcripts at OKW n OKH, which after the war were quoted in depth as saying, “” throughout the battle of 1940, the battle of Arras were the only point when the entire campaign was put in serious doubt”” . Although the German High Command did not know it yet at the time, that the attack has very little chance of success, given the inability of the British n French to coordinate their command, it did however created so much disagreement between the field commanders n HQ that Hitler saw a chance to step in and proceeded with his infamous halt order couple of days later, giving the Allies time to prepare their defences in the south, towards Paris, n North towards the channel. With these, we can proceed to wonder “”what if” . MH(N)V did a good job stating this fact in his videos. It’s hard to miss.
Shellshocked German no one claimed that they were, yet. However, being a opportunistic demagogue that he is, when OKW n OKH headquarters n the field commanders were in complete disagreement on how fast they should proceed, Halder n Von Kleist wants a pause to secure its flanks, while Rommel and Guderian wants to reach the channel the next day, he saw an opportunity to imposed his authority among the trained technicians of the Wehrmacht. Hence, the halt order, as explained in my comment and that of this channel. Again, very hard to miss this detail.
could you please make a video, of how 88s were organized ( where they in Flak Abteilungen, as part of a korps/army unit, or where they part of an infanterie division?) thanks!
important faktor in the possibility of the tanks of the ghost division to be able to go forwards and backwards over great lengths is the acquiring of civilian petrol at the french gas stations. If they would have been dependent on petroltrucks driving solitarily between the trailing infantry and the tanks...they would have been shot up.. the french were total imbeciles for allowing the gas stations still in service over there during those confusing war days...
@colin minhinnick The condescending attitude the British showed towards the French after and even during the fall of France was totally unwarranted and unbefitting of an ally. They had their fair share of responsibility for the catastrophe. Among other things, they held back their best fighter planes at home when they were desperately needed to have a chance to win the battle for air superiority over France. Also, they never gave the French much confidence that they were actually committed to the defence of France, the small expeditionary forces always ready to retreat to the harbours. The British fought with the attitude of a world-spanning empire not really fully invested in the fight.
@@arthurlewis9193 Let's just say The Expeditionary force was not as eager as the British love to claim today. Several batalions retreated from their post in Belguim without informing the French batalions covering their flank (guess want happened to those when the german arrived and they didn't knew the english had retreated) the comanding officer used operationnal security as justification for this. Also the british fled leaving tones of materials, field guns, materials and vehicules in their wake, wich was good for fleeing but considerably reduced their combat effectivness. When the encerclement was nearly complete the French commandement drafted a plan to break it with simultanous attacks from the south and from the pocket. The answer from the Expeditionary Force Commander to the French highest officer in the pocket to the possibility of a counter-atttack was that "his men were tired and wanted to go home". Thus leaving the French defending Dunkirk as operation Dynamo was launched as mutual disdain was arriving at his peak in the pocket allied command. The British love to talk of the Miracle of Dunkirk, but they forget that miracle was bought with the lives of the lives of French soldiers who hold the city for days against a more numerous enemy and under heavy bombardement from the Luftwaffe. (A thing the British soldier at the time understood, as the French soldiers were celebrated as heroes for holding the rear by their British counterpart when they debarqued in England).
As far as I was aware the German officer was standing next to romel when an A11 caught him with a burst of .50 calibre fire... also we had a number of carden loyd and other carriers for our infantry though the Germans might have mistaken them for light armour and thus not reported them as armoured infantry... they were rapidly shot up.... the tanks were of course british.. there being no english only units in our military... but it makes us scots laugh when you quote that sort of thing.. afrer all we don't call attacking german units prussian Austrian etc.... as far as I recall it was an SS unit that ran away.. but memory fades... the British at no time retreated.... they simply resumed their starting positions.. which is a standard cavalry procedure afrer a full charge.. Unless a hold ground order is given....
With German air superiority the allies were consistently unable to combine arms as the Luftwaffe punished the artillery parks and the infantry forming up areas. I often wonder if the battle would have turned out differently if the British had sent more interceptors over and had not been so paralyzed with fear that vast hordes of bombers were going to level their cities during the Fall of France.
This is where I heard that Rommel commanded the officer in charge of the 88s to turn them on the British tanks and he finally relented which saved the day. Is there any truth to that?
They put rommel into a TANK division. He was a stormtrooper leader in the first world war and did THE SAME SHIT THERE WITH INFANTERY! Look at Italy or Romania! They should have expected that from the very beginning xD
Actually, it was. 60 mm all around, both hull and turret. Too much for a 3.7 cm Pak 36 to penetrate. The key difference between the A11 Infantry Tank Mark I (Matilda I) and the A12 Infantry Tank Mark II (Matilda II) was that on the A12, the suspension was protected by extra armour, while on the A11, the suspension was completely exposed (the British government demanded that the A11 be as cheap as possible to produce). So while the 3,7 cm Pak 36 couldn't penetrate the A11's armour, it could (with multiple hits) shoot off one of its tracks, or shoot off a front idler wheel, or shoot off a suspension bogie - any of which would immobilise the A11 and turn it into a stationary pillbox. Which the Germans could deal with later using artillery, 8,8 cm Flak gun, or with infantry advancing under the cover of smoke.
First of all Derptank nice picture. Blackadder right? Lol. Secondly I actually heard that the Japanese who estimated the combat losses could "guarantee" a successful six months against America but after that they weren't optimistic because it was only a matter of time until we rebuilt our Pacific fleet. I also heard that the estimate was noted but was disregarded due to the American oil embargo on Japan and the attacks were carried out to secure much needed resources like rubber and oil. To me this all makes sense but the source (a relative of mine who was known to exaggerate) is reliable on most things but occasionally questionable.
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality. Just as many do with Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too, when needed) But it was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions than saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different way. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the careful Monty. He often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. But being at the front DID have the energy and presence to make rapid moves and get going. Underrated Monty had the best balance; plans and presence!
ALA the British had a tiny army compared to the European powers, they were there in support of those nations being invaded, just like WW1, once a again faced with a war they didn’t want they built up a formidable military which was eventually a significant part of the alliance that won.
Frankish Empire at the end of the Napoleonic wars Britain undertook to guarantee the independence of Belgium (a nation created at that time) the purpose of that guarantee was to preserve peace in Europe after the horrors of that war (you only have to look at the casualties in various battles to understand why numerous Europeans wanted that). WW1 Germany (a new nation which had not existed in 1815) invaded Belgium, Britain also had an alliance with France - having talked with my grandmother (a Victorian lady born in1888) I can confirm that sensible British public opinion did not want a war. The story of WW2 is better known, again guarantees had been given (that of defending Poland was obviously more theoretical than practical) people like my parents (both pacifists in their youth) found themselves forced into a war which most British people thought was insane because following the appalling experience of the Great War you have to ask why Germany would want to repeat the experience in which their nation was beaten and narrowly escaped being annihilated (however we now know that a ‘betrayal myth’ grew up in Germany during the inter war years, and this myth held that the German military should have prevailed had they not been betrayed, most subsequent analysis indicates that in both wars the German military in fact ‘took on’ more than they could handle by annoying too many nations at once in much the same way that Napoleon did)
I love your videos but I have a language problem Can you make your videos in Arabic too This would be wonderful because the Arab region is still in a military conflict
Do you know what happened the first time the US Army met the Heer on the field of battle? Kesserine Pass is what happened. And that was by a severely weakened German Army that was short of supplies, whose units were greatly attrited, with less than a fifth of the armour its armoured formations would usually have, and who were exhausted..... There was plenty of resistance in 1940 during the Battle of France... the problem was it was uncoordinated, and after the Armour moved through the Ardennes the Allied armies were cut in two. Even good troops cannot do much when their High Command is running around like headless chickens, and that is probably being generous when looking at how well the French High Command did. Not to mention the slight issue with training that stemmed from WWI. You see, the french had lost so many men of military age during WWI that it took years for the population to recover. We are talking 1.4 million combat deaths, that is just deaths. Look at that figure for a while, France lost more men dead in WWI than the US sustained total casualties (dead, wounded and captured) in both World Wars. In fact in WWI France lost more men dead than the US has lost dead in EVERY WAR IT HAS EVER FOUGHT, including the Civil War. And no, they did not use Colonials as meatshields, their Colonial troops were well regarded, highly trained Assault troops, and used as such. Total Combat dead for French Colonial Troops? 58,000. This led to a problem, the French Army was a conscript Army, and a large one, but you have to release those boys after a couple of years because they need to get back to their farms and jobs to... you know... keep the Economy going and feed the country. As a result of the manpower shortage the length of service for a French Conscript dropped from 3 years in 1913, to 1 year in the mid 1930's. Of that one year they received an entire 140 days of actual training. The French army of 1939 was made up of short term conscripts with 140 days of military training facing equal numbers of German troops who had undergone at least a year of training for new recruits, and who had recent combat experience. Sure, many of the reasons for the debacle of France in 1940 were down to mistakes. British and French Doctrine was inadequate, Communications were horrific. The best British and French tanks looked great on paper, but had extremely serious design flaws that seriously impacted their effectiveness (one man turret on the Somua, very slow speed and no HE shell for the Matilda II). The problem was NOT however the courage of the fighting men, both British and French troops fought hard and, in more than one case, literally to the last. France in 1940 was still suffering the very real after effects of the most brutal, bloody war in their history. Unlike Germany their population did not recover. That latter *may* have been the garlic... but don't quote me on that one! (Come on, I am a Brit! You cannot expect me to talk about the French with at least ONE dig right?)
Well that doesen't take much much does it? As any vietnamese farmer will tell you or a Geram veteran of Kasserine Pass will tell you how well you army fought during it's first meeting with the Germans.
As an American who learned at a young age from my ex-military dad who lives eats and breathes history, we got our butts thoroughly handed to us at Kasserene pass. It gave us a good wake up call and let us know very clearly what not to do next time. As for Vietnam; the individual soldiers did very well on each side but there was an obvious familiarity with terrain and more importantly we supposedly had official who didn't want us to win and replaced generals who actually tried to turn the tide in our favor. There were several good plans proposed but they were ordered canceled before launch. The French Foreign Legion (for clarity: the majority of whom were not actually French) were actually going to clear out, patrol, and take over sectors of the tunnel networks that gave us such a hard time. Also a plan was proposed to clear out (bulldoze and burn) large sections of jungle using our combat engineers and then capture or eliminate anything that didn't surrender. This plan was instantly denied and the officer and most likely some of his staff were replaced. To compare Kasserine to Vietnam is a little over simplified. Kasserine we lost fair and square and we quickly learned. Vietnam was overly complicated and we still haven't learned. Just my two cents.
Who really ever cared about Arras? Did you simply forgot to mention that at that stage of the war or particular campaign the Wehrmacht had still a huge reserve? It might have been that Arras was the first time of stronger resistance, but someone who participated there and later in the african campaign up to Monte Casino called Arras not worth to mention - compared all the african battles. He hadn't see any panic in Arras which had been also a fight in bad sight for the germans. The only point was the astonishing resistance they hadn't seen before.
Actually Arras was a very big shock as it showed a few things. But mostly 1. The Panzers were pushing out too far ahead of the main body and were vulnerable to being cut off. This affected the German mind set and shocked and scared them. 2. It showed that the German 37mm anti tank gun was already becoming obsolete, resulting in Rommel panicking and using the 88mm in a quickly set up ad hoc anti tank screen. Whilst compared to later tank battles at Alamein and Kursk you could rightly consider it 'small'. At that point in the war it was a big deal. Context is important.
As I often mention I'm not a modern wars specialist by far - I'm a bladed weapons guy not a gun one! - but I think that MHV in this video wanted to make some sort of response to the previous "Ghost Division" video to explain the limits of tactics such as Rommel's ones. The turtle metaphor being the key analogy IMHO. Moreover it shows us that British and French are absolutely incapable of exploiting any kind of advantage, And when you think that in Sevastopol in 1854-5(?) during the Crimean war they were able to strike furiously at the exact same time, you get an idea of how rotten the fruit was especially on the French side. Just my 2 cents on the matter cause I cannot tell about the genuine importance of this battle.
@@neues3691 I guess it depends on what you consider 'shock'. I would say he panicked a little bit. That does not mean he was running around like a little bitch. It just means he was momentarily having to put something together to deal with a strength of threat he had not envisaged. Up till this point French and British tank use had been somewhat piecemeal and most counter attacks quite badly co ordinated and never really presented the same level of threat that other attacks had produced. Panic can be internalized.
From a Combat Marines perspective. It is not Panic, it is adapting quickly. To a bad situation. He(Rommel) found the answer to the problem, quickly. Without loss of hope(ie panic). The biggest thing I see. Is the Germans came to rely on the 88 flak guns too often. And did not see solutions to the Guns weakness soon enough. ie the 88 flak's lack of mobility.
@@astropuffin4873 MHV did a video on the 88mm and it was always designed and to be able to engage tanks and function as medium artillery, and its crews were also trained accordingly. So it wasn't ad hoc to use them as AT guns really. In fact if it was used "ad hoc" there was no way for it to fight tanks, the anti-air flak shells wouldn't have a chance of penetrating any sort of real armor - what they fired were purpose designed anti-tank rounds.
I love your videos but I have a language problem Can you make your videos in Arabic too This would be wonderful because the Arab region is still in a military conflict
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the Montgomery. Patton had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!
Remebering that thiis was the Second Battle of Arras. The First Battlee was fought 23 yr earlier duuring April 1917 , part of the actions including the Canadin victory at Vemy Ridge, the the two Battles at Bullicourt fought by the Australians.
Watching this after the Tank Museum's David Willey put up his talk on the battle. Both of the videos are informative and it's nice to see the differences and similarities.
11:58 can someone explain to me how the Matilda II was under armed? I thought the 2-pdr was a very effective early war weapon have I missed something? if so please send me the source because I'm very interested about this subject.
Yes the myth goes that the 8.8 was only for AA and then Rommel supposedly just shat out the idea that the 8.8 can kill tanks and so he did and so they did It’s not true
@@crhu319 uh huh, and the 8.8 SP half track shooting up T-26s in Spanish Civil War was what? A figment of the imagination of both sides? No, Rommel didn’t come up with it randomly as legend has
Rommel is quite right to call this fight the "so called" Battle of Arras. One can suspect that it was only a pin stroke to protect the retreat of 3 British divisions still to the east of this position and threatened to see their road to Dunkirk cut off by the German advance. As shown on this map from Frieser's book "Blitzkrieg legend", the British attack was repelled after only 50 minutes (between 15:30 and 16:20). www.39-45strategie.com/fileadmin/images/39-45/Articles_historiques/Arras/arras21mai40.jpg The rest of the fighting was only the German counter-attack and the protection of the British right flank by the 3rd DLM against the attempt of encirclement on the part of the Totenkopf division. Frieser is a serious and credible source.
Somebody else actually played that game and liked it?!?! Also: given assault rifle, faced with 30+ enemies, replaces it with lever action Henry to make it a fair fight.
2:30 - - - "A neighboring division has this problem. Some run away and panic" My note: That was SS Totenkopf - maybe in that moment still a regiment, later definitely becoming a division
Use some calibers! I assume the PAK at that time was the 35 mm PAK which was unable to penetrate the Matilda IIs and heavy French tanks. Also mentioning that most Matilda IIs as Infantry Tanks were armed with HE and Smoke rounds which made them very effective vs infantry but not tanks would have been good I think.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Pak_36 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder Matilda II tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced. The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the careful Monty. He often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. But being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the balance of both!
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the Montgomery. Patton often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Poor general Billote, the Germans destroyed his reputation in 1940, and now in 2019 his name's pronunciation is also destroyed, by an Austrian youtuber ;)
I don't really know why he butchers Billotte's name. That name could be pronounced like the two "ls" in "Brille" (glasses in German) and it would be more correct.
Billotte turned out that way, because I remember - maybe wrongly - that someone suggested it is pronounced that way.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized: Well, I would suggest that someone to take a French pronunciation class as that "sch" as in Bischoff, is definitely wrong.
@Gany Ixon, yeah, send me 1000 Bucks, I will think about it: paypal.me/mhvis
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized savage
looks like Britain and France forgot all the combined forces lessons they learned in WW1.
The Crazy Old Coot
It’s debatable that they even learnt any.
They learnt it, issue was its officers and the lack of radios.
Due to fears of communications being monitored by Germany considering the enigma thing
And its officers after doing a military exercise regarding tanks moving through a forest akin to the ardennes, decided to ignore the lesson
fulcrum 29
Oh I meant in the first war.
@@Rohilla313 They did learn in WWI but lost their way in the Interwars period due to budget constraints.
@@filipeamaral216 Budget and political constraints, it is hard to overemphasis how screwed up French politics were. About the same is Italian, but they didn't put a dictator in charge to try and fix it all (which really only fixed the issue of disagreements, not improving the situations themselves). At the end of the Great War they were on their 41st Prime Minister (actually their 32nd for a second time, but I am being lazy with the maths) and 10th President. At the end of the Third Republic they were on 57 (which is Petain) and 15, which is not even including that some had multiple but non consecutive terms, Daladier for instance was Prime Minster on three occasions, as was Chautemps, Laval and Blum were both twice, etc. On average a Prime Minister lasted for less than a 6 month term, which is why they eventually had the government disbanded and the Fifth Republic. This did effect the military, de Gaulle wrote a treatise on a new, professional and mechanized army, Blum saw this as an assault on democracy as there was a concept that a large, standing professional military could potentially cause a coup. Same idea the Americans had, which is why they specifically wrote the 2nd Amendment btw, the militias were not to defend against the Brits, but to give the states their own militaries to stop the federal Continental Army if it came to that, although they also largely disbanded the Continental Army so that it couldn't. Lasted until the largest American loss to a Native American force, then they realized that militias were pretty shitty. Washington addressed part of the first State of the Union at that.
Your English has gotten much better since you started, just like to congratulate you on that. It is such easier to understand you now than in your 2016 videos when I found you
thank you!
Military History not Visualized And it’s a darn sight better than my German....
That's a damn aesthetic thumbnail.
yeah right, actually took me a while to realize it was a MH(n)V's video
Looks like an Infographics Show thumbnail a little bit, for better or worse.
@@cnlbenmc except not awful and lazily made
+@@dallindunn1186+ Oh yeah, and not with a bunch of vehicles being used by the wrong countries.
Is there in a case to make Arras one of the most decisive encounters of the Second World War because it leads directly to the halt order, the evacuation from Dunkirk, and ultimately the ability of Britain to continue fighting the War? A small action with almost incalculable consequences.
I think that many soldiers still would've been able to escape seeing the french rear guard soldiers were fighting till the end
Should look at Bir-Hakeim for a good example of a small battle with large consequences
@@samarkand1585 What consequences? Tobruk fell.
@@etwas013 yeah, but the troops there didn't get encircled
@@samarkand1585 +Cpl. Rook Okay, that is indeed true.
The worst day for the Ghost Division was the day they found some expired escargot. Oh boy lemme tell you, it was not a fun day for anyone
The "other German division" was SS Totenkopf, (not yet the panzer div, recruited from Camp Guard scum) who ran like rabbits & received much criticism
They showed far more spirit the next week murdering Ninety-seven British POWs in Le Paradis massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Paradis_massacre
Prior to Arras, they had conducted mopping up operations, collecting French prisoners near Cambrai, except the 200 French Colonial troops that they also murdered
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was their presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely Montgomery. Patton had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!
This in interesting in that it makes sense but I've never actually compared Montgomery, Romel, and Patton at the same time and also leaving the sometimes immature rivalries aside. Hmmmm...thank you!
Great post. I fully concur.
The division had some worse days in Barbarossa although by then Rommel was no longer in command, having moved on to North Africa. The 7. Panzerdivision had 265 tanks just before Barbarossa, and by January 23, 1942 it was down to nine. It had 9,000 killed and wounded during this period.
“...Rommel’s...”
You and Mark Felton are the two best on YT for WW2 info.
Tanks used by the British, during the Battle of France campaign, were:
Vickers Light Mk.VI a
Vickers Light Mk.VI b
Vickers Light Mk.VI c
A9 Cruiser I
A9 Cruiser I CS
A10 Cruiser II
A10 Cruiser II CS
A11 Matilda I
A12 Matilda II
A12 Matilda II CS
A13 Mk.I Cruiser III
A13 Cruiser III Mk.I CS
A13 Mk.II Cruiser IV
A13 Mk.II Cruiser IV
I'll take the Cruiser III. Fast. Not likely to be ordered into action on short notice as it's only one. Get to Dunkirk first!
Love the book comment from David Fletcher at the end, about the Matilda 1. Can imagine him saying it just as it is written!
I recall reading an account of the battle written by a British soldier in one of the Matilda tanks. Apparently, they were ordered to maintain radio silence as they moved up to the start line so as not to alert the enemy. This meant they could not test their radios before the battle which resulted in many of the tanks being out of contact at a crucial time . This identifies one of the problems facing the Allies - they just did not have the luxury of time to learn from their mistakes and put things right.
Great content! Maybe something about Case Red next time
I think the thing of running the AT guns over comes from the fact that only 15 Matilda 2s were present. The much more common Matilda 1s were armed only with 303 machineguns and their only hope to knock out an AT gun was to run it down.
For the smaller number of Matilda 2s there is plenty of accounts elsewhere in the war of shooting 2pdr solids through a gun to make it inoperable. Although I do admit that this is usually in the case of much larger German and Italian weapons and it's probably easier to run over something like a PAK36 than to be confident of hitting something important on the tiny gun!
I recall seeing a claim, long ago, that the A12 Matilda II, along with the likes of other tanks such as the Char B1 and KV-1 were the inspiration for the creation of the Tiger, how correct is that?
Also, in regards to the A11 Matilda I, there's a fantastic part on the excellent 'War Walks' series by Richard Holmes where a BEF veteran of Arras goes over the A11 and gives his opinion, needless to say he doesn't rate it highly!
nope, the Tiger was originally the "DW" Durchbruchswagen, like nearly everything it was based on pre-war designs. Of course, meeting various threats etc. accelerated the development and lead to their continuation.
Tiger looks identical akin to a bigger sized version of a Pz Mk III.
The Tiger was the next logical step in tank design for the Germans. They had all ready plans and designs called DurchsWagen, based on the Grosstractor prototypes. Panther tank was built out of the blue as a response to T34 etc.
Wow I finally put a face on a voice ! Not at all what i expected :-))
But you have to admit that he has a righteous Austrian beard. 🙂👍
Infantrie Greift An - you can’t take Rommel out of Rommel - his strength is his weakness.
The heavy anti-tank guns mentioned at 7:35, is that the British QF 2-pounde?
Huh, you didn't repeat the misconception that the battle of Arras was a counterattack designed to relink with the lines to the south, something Wikipedia claims was the purpose. The operational orders had the British units sort of going in a circle around Arras and then a short line in an east direction once south-east of Arras, something not consistent with trying to reestablish connection to the south. The French did propose an idea of counterattacking to reestablish connection with the British providing flank security while the French tried to push south, but Lord Gort didn't have confidence they would do so, and they didn't, so I think the British plan was just to inflict some casualties on overextended units.
The Matilda 2 was not underarmed for 1940 for 1942 when you have tigers and up armoured panzer 3s and 4s yes but in 1940 the 2pdr Anti Tank gun was one of the best going bigger than most European anti tank guns that were only around 37mm it was able to beat any German tank at the time the issue was that Britain didn’t seem to use any tanks with Some howitzer which would have allowed them to have a good AT tank with also a close support variant allowing you to target the infantry and the tanks the queen of the desert was one of the best tanks of the war for its time better armoured than anything it would face faster than the French heavies and better crew layout with the 3 man turrets so it’s actually a really good tank
There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced.
The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
It had a decent AT gun for its time but nothing more.This is uneasy to find the accurate data about it because under one name you can find all models developped during several years.It is very common for aircrafts so you can have german or british planes from 1940 with 1942 or 43 performances...The version used in Arras was extremely slow,definitely slower than the B1 bis with poorer range and it's frontal armour was thicker but no more effective after test reports.French(and (soon after?)Soviets)used some innovative welding techniques which permit to spare on weight without diminishing the resistance.
good overview, yes, there's a good argument for saying the Matilta 2 was the best tank anyone had in 1940, able to defeat any other tank's armour but immune to any other tank's main gun, three man turret, coaxial mg.
„You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a
good conclusion.“ - Julian Assange
How do you figure the Matilda II being under armed in 1940 ?
There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced.
The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
@@ULTRA_2112 it was no different to its contemporaries in that regard, the 37mm of the German tanks has similar limitations on HE effectiveness. Even the 50mm was not great with HE.
The 2pdr's bad press came about from it staying in service a lot longer than it should have AND the tactic of the DAK of luring the British tanks into AT Gun ambushes where the lack of effective HE became an issue. In terms of its intended use the 2pdr was a gun equal to and in many cases better than its contemporaries in 1940.
love the thumbnail, make it a poster or something!
From the British side, the general breakdown in communication caused by the speed of the Wehrmacht's advance left the attack's objectives unknown to the commanders in the field. The original instructions given to General Franklyn was to relieve the garrison south of Arras, but Ironside changed this to a more ambitious combined attack with the French to pinch off the German salient. But this information never got to Franklyn. Similarly, General d'Astier de la Vigerie of the French Airforce received orders to support the British attack, but was sent no details to work with, and found himself unable to contact the First Army HQ or the RAF attached to the BEF; French recon aircraft went up, but the Luftwaffe prevented them from getting close to Arras until 4 pm. Worse, both the British attack going south, and the French attack going north, were unaware of each other's actions, and even managed to occur on different days. In the end, both attacks were carried out with fewer men and machines intended, as no where near as many could be assembled in time to carry out the attacks.
Who cares about Arras? No less the then transcripts at OKW n OKH, which after the war were quoted in depth as saying, “” throughout the battle of 1940, the battle of Arras were the only point when the entire campaign was put in serious doubt”” . Although the German High Command did not know it yet at the time, that the attack has very little chance of success, given the inability of the British n French to coordinate their command, it did however created so much disagreement between the field commanders n HQ that Hitler saw a chance to step in and proceeded with his infamous halt order couple of days later, giving the Allies time to prepare their defences in the south, towards Paris, n North towards the channel. With these, we can proceed to wonder “”what if” . MH(N)V did a good job stating this fact in his videos. It’s hard to miss.
Shellshocked German no one claimed that they were, yet. However, being a opportunistic demagogue that he is, when OKW n OKH headquarters n the field commanders were in complete disagreement on how fast they should proceed, Halder n Von Kleist wants a pause to secure its flanks, while Rommel and Guderian wants to reach the channel the next day, he saw an opportunity to imposed his authority among the trained technicians of the Wehrmacht. Hence, the halt order, as explained in my comment and that of this channel. Again, very hard to miss this detail.
I know, I was replying to the guy above.
I Hate War ....But I love studying it !
could you please make a video, of how 88s were organized ( where they in Flak Abteilungen, as part of a korps/army unit, or where they part of an infanterie division?) thanks!
Will you make videos about other german generals who lead from the front?
7th Panzer Division lost 37 tanks.. explain the 'not a tank battle bit'.
Face reveal be like
Love your videos, man
There is nothing like listening to English spoken with perfect German efficiency, it’s great .
das es fantastic
important faktor in the possibility of the tanks of the ghost division to be able to go forwards and backwards over great lengths is the acquiring of civilian petrol at the french gas stations.
If they would have been dependent on petroltrucks driving solitarily between the trailing infantry and the tanks...they would have been shot up..
the french were total imbeciles for allowing the gas stations still in service over there during those confusing war days...
@colin minhinnick The condescending attitude the British showed towards the French after and even during the fall of France was totally unwarranted and unbefitting of an ally. They had their fair share of responsibility for the catastrophe.
Among other things, they held back their best fighter planes at home when they were desperately needed to have a chance to win the battle for air superiority over France. Also, they never gave the French much confidence that they were actually committed to the defence of France, the small expeditionary forces always ready to retreat to the harbours. The British fought with the attitude of a world-spanning empire not really fully invested in the fight.
@@Nimmermaer lets also not forget how "heroic" the British defended Singapore...
@@Nimmermaer The British weren't brave enough defending France. Riiiiiight....
@@arthurlewis9193 Let's just say The Expeditionary force was not as eager as the British love to claim today.
Several batalions retreated from their post in Belguim without informing the French batalions covering their flank (guess want happened to those when the german arrived and they didn't knew the english had retreated) the comanding officer used operationnal security as justification for this. Also the british fled leaving tones of materials, field guns, materials and vehicules in their wake, wich was good for fleeing but considerably reduced their combat effectivness.
When the encerclement was nearly complete the French commandement drafted a plan to break it with simultanous attacks from the south and from the pocket. The answer from the Expeditionary Force Commander to the French highest officer in the pocket to the possibility of a counter-atttack was that "his men were tired and wanted to go home". Thus leaving the French defending Dunkirk as operation Dynamo was launched as mutual disdain was arriving at his peak in the pocket allied command.
The British love to talk of the Miracle of Dunkirk, but they forget that miracle was bought with the lives of the lives of French soldiers who hold the city for days against a more numerous enemy and under heavy bombardement from the Luftwaffe. (A thing the British soldier at the time understood, as the French soldiers were celebrated as heroes for holding the rear by their British counterpart when they debarqued in England).
@@shuaguin5446 The first rule of internet revisionism: wait until all those who know the truth are dead or impossible to contact.
As far as I was aware the German officer was standing next to romel when an A11 caught him with a burst of .50 calibre fire... also we had a number of carden loyd and other carriers for our infantry though the Germans might have mistaken them for light armour and thus not reported them as armoured infantry... they were rapidly shot up.... the tanks were of course british.. there being no english only units in our military... but it makes us scots laugh when you quote that sort of thing.. afrer all we don't call attacking german units prussian Austrian etc.... as far as I recall it was an SS unit that ran away.. but memory fades... the British at no time retreated.... they simply resumed their starting positions.. which is a standard cavalry procedure afrer a full charge.. Unless a hold ground order is given....
With German air superiority the allies were consistently unable to combine arms as the Luftwaffe punished the artillery parks and the infantry forming up areas. I often wonder if the battle would have turned out differently if the British had sent more interceptors over and had not been so paralyzed with fear that vast hordes of bombers were going to level their cities during the Fall of France.
Why do you say "Bishotte" when it is Billotte (pronounced Beeyot)?
Because he's Austrian.
This is where I heard that Rommel commanded the officer in charge of the 88s to turn them on the British tanks and he finally relented which saved the day. Is there any truth to that?
They put rommel into a TANK division. He was a stormtrooper leader in the first world war and did THE SAME SHIT THERE WITH INFANTERY! Look at Italy or Romania! They should have expected that from the very beginning xD
6: 10 General Billote: i's pronounced BEE-YOT, not bexshoaht or whatever you're saying ;-)
NATO Nomenclature, Thank God.
I thought the armour on the a11 was also considered very heavy and hard to penetrate. Interesting you say otherwise.
I guess the 15mm of extra armour on the front made a difference.
Actually, it was. 60 mm all around, both hull and turret. Too much for a 3.7 cm Pak 36 to penetrate.
The key difference between the A11 Infantry Tank Mark I (Matilda I) and the A12 Infantry Tank Mark II (Matilda II) was that on the A12, the suspension was protected by extra armour, while on the A11, the suspension was completely exposed (the British government demanded that the A11 be as cheap as possible to produce).
So while the 3,7 cm Pak 36 couldn't penetrate the A11's armour, it could (with multiple hits) shoot off one of its tracks, or shoot off a front idler wheel, or shoot off a suspension bogie - any of which would immobilise the A11 and turn it into a stationary pillbox. Which the Germans could deal with later using artillery, 8,8 cm Flak gun, or with infantry advancing under the cover of smoke.
Unprotected tracks, armed with just a machine gun, driver almost blind when buttoned up? Armour isn't everything.
Ich glaube man spricht es ‚bijot‘ aus
Last time I was this early Japan thought they could defeat the US in the Pacific.
Last time I was this early, Japan still had an Empire
They have never thought that.
They believed they could make the war so costly that the american people would give up and not invade.
First of all Derptank nice picture. Blackadder right? Lol. Secondly I actually heard that the Japanese who estimated the combat losses could "guarantee" a successful six months against America but after that they weren't optimistic because it was only a matter of time until we rebuilt our Pacific fleet. I also heard that the estimate was noted but was disregarded due to the American oil embargo on Japan and the attacks were carried out to secure much needed resources like rubber and oil. To me this all makes sense but the source (a relative of mine who was known to exaggerate) is reliable on most things but occasionally questionable.
That's all well and good, but who won the war?
Who cares in this video?
Geeat channel! Love it...make movie about soviet anti blitzkrieg tactic 43-44.
Basically its bf5
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality. Just as many do with Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too, when needed) But it was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions than saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different way. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the careful Monty. He often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. But being at the front DID have the energy and presence to make rapid moves and get going. Underrated Monty had the best balance; plans and presence!
That day was a holiday compared to the late war Eastern Front.
The Soviets didn't dare pick a fight with Nazi Germany though.
Wow you have made a video about a Brit counter attack at Arras. What a rare event, where everywhere else they were running for their lives.
ALA the British had a tiny army compared to the European powers, they were there in support of those nations being invaded, just like WW1, once a again faced with a war they didn’t want they built up a formidable military which was eventually a significant part of the alliance that won.
you have little knowledge of what happend in 1940 of the size of the armies involved
@@pcka12 "faced with a war they didn’t want"
Pretty odd as they declared war on germany both times....
Frankish Empire at the end of the Napoleonic wars Britain undertook to guarantee the independence of Belgium (a nation created at that time) the purpose of that guarantee was to preserve peace in Europe after the horrors of that war (you only have to look at the casualties in various battles to understand why numerous Europeans wanted that). WW1 Germany (a new nation which had not existed in 1815) invaded Belgium, Britain also had an alliance with France - having talked with my grandmother (a Victorian lady born in1888) I can confirm that sensible British public opinion did not want a war.
The story of WW2 is better known, again guarantees had been given (that of defending Poland was obviously more theoretical than practical) people like my parents (both pacifists in their youth) found themselves forced into a war which most British people thought was insane because following the appalling experience of the Great War you have to ask why Germany would want to repeat the experience in which their nation was beaten and narrowly escaped being annihilated (however we now know that a ‘betrayal myth’ grew up in Germany during the inter war years, and this myth held that the German military should have prevailed had they not been betrayed, most subsequent analysis indicates that in both wars the German military in fact ‘took on’ more than they could handle by annoying too many nations at once in much the same way that Napoleon did)
The British never run.
I love your videos but I have a language problem
Can you make your videos in Arabic too
This would be wonderful because the Arab region is still in a military conflict
Are you telling me the allies actually put up a fight during Invasion of France?! This American’s mind is blown.....
Do you know what happened the first time the US Army met the Heer on the field of battle?
Kesserine Pass is what happened. And that was by a severely weakened German Army that was short of supplies, whose units were greatly attrited, with less than a fifth of the armour its armoured formations would usually have, and who were exhausted.....
There was plenty of resistance in 1940 during the Battle of France... the problem was it was uncoordinated, and after the Armour moved through the Ardennes the Allied armies were cut in two. Even good troops cannot do much when their High Command is running around like headless chickens, and that is probably being generous when looking at how well the French High Command did.
Not to mention the slight issue with training that stemmed from WWI. You see, the french had lost so many men of military age during WWI that it took years for the population to recover. We are talking 1.4 million combat deaths, that is just deaths. Look at that figure for a while, France lost more men dead in WWI than the US sustained total casualties (dead, wounded and captured) in both World Wars. In fact in WWI France lost more men dead than the US has lost dead in EVERY WAR IT HAS EVER FOUGHT, including the Civil War. And no, they did not use Colonials as meatshields, their Colonial troops were well regarded, highly trained Assault troops, and used as such. Total Combat dead for French Colonial Troops? 58,000.
This led to a problem, the French Army was a conscript Army, and a large one, but you have to release those boys after a couple of years because they need to get back to their farms and jobs to... you know... keep the Economy going and feed the country. As a result of the manpower shortage the length of service for a French Conscript dropped from 3 years in 1913, to 1 year in the mid 1930's. Of that one year they received an entire 140 days of actual training.
The French army of 1939 was made up of short term conscripts with 140 days of military training facing equal numbers of German troops who had undergone at least a year of training for new recruits, and who had recent combat experience.
Sure, many of the reasons for the debacle of France in 1940 were down to mistakes. British and French Doctrine was inadequate, Communications were horrific. The best British and French tanks looked great on paper, but had extremely serious design flaws that seriously impacted their effectiveness (one man turret on the Somua, very slow speed and no HE shell for the Matilda II). The problem was NOT however the courage of the fighting men, both British and French troops fought hard and, in more than one case, literally to the last.
France in 1940 was still suffering the very real after effects of the most brutal, bloody war in their history. Unlike Germany their population did not recover.
That latter *may* have been the garlic... but don't quote me on that one!
(Come on, I am a Brit! You cannot expect me to talk about the French with at least ONE dig right?)
Well that doesen't take much much does it? As any vietnamese farmer will tell you or a Geram veteran of Kasserine Pass will tell you how well you army fought during it's first meeting with the Germans.
As an American who learned at a young age from my ex-military dad who lives eats and breathes history, we got our butts thoroughly handed to us at Kasserene pass. It gave us a good wake up call and let us know very clearly what not to do next time. As for Vietnam; the individual soldiers did very well on each side but there was an obvious familiarity with terrain and more importantly we supposedly had official who didn't want us to win and replaced generals who actually tried to turn the tide in our favor. There were several good plans proposed but they were ordered canceled before launch. The French Foreign Legion (for clarity: the majority of whom were not actually French) were actually going to clear out, patrol, and take over sectors of the tunnel networks that gave us such a hard time. Also a plan was proposed to clear out (bulldoze and burn) large sections of jungle using our combat engineers and then capture or eliminate anything that didn't surrender. This plan was instantly denied and the officer and most likely some of his staff were replaced. To compare Kasserine to Vietnam is a little over simplified. Kasserine we lost fair and square and we quickly learned. Vietnam was overly complicated and we still haven't learned. Just my two cents.
@@isaiahcampbell488 Don't forget in WW2 the Americans suffered a retreat as late as December 1944 in the Ardennes. Just saying.
Who really ever cared about Arras?
Did you simply forgot to mention that at that stage of the war or particular campaign the Wehrmacht had still a huge reserve?
It might have been that Arras was the first time of stronger resistance, but someone who participated there and later in the african campaign up to Monte Casino called Arras not worth to mention - compared all the african battles. He hadn't see any panic in Arras which had been also a fight in bad sight for the germans. The only point was the astonishing resistance they hadn't seen before.
Actually Arras was a very big shock as it showed a few things. But mostly 1. The Panzers were pushing out too far ahead of the main body and were vulnerable to being cut off. This affected the German mind set and shocked and scared them. 2. It showed that the German 37mm anti tank gun was already becoming obsolete, resulting in Rommel panicking and using the 88mm in a quickly set up ad hoc anti tank screen. Whilst compared to later tank battles at Alamein and Kursk you could rightly consider it 'small'. At that point in the war it was a big deal. Context is important.
As I often mention I'm not a modern wars specialist by far - I'm a bladed weapons guy not a gun one! - but I think that MHV in this video wanted to make some sort of response to the previous "Ghost Division" video to explain the limits of tactics such as Rommel's ones. The turtle metaphor being the key analogy IMHO. Moreover it shows us that British and French are absolutely incapable of exploiting any kind of advantage,
And when you think that in Sevastopol in 1854-5(?) during the Crimean war they were able to strike furiously at the exact same time, you get an idea of how rotten the fruit was especially on the French side. Just my 2 cents on the matter cause I cannot tell about the genuine importance of this battle.
@@neues3691 I guess it depends on what you consider 'shock'. I would say he panicked a little bit. That does not mean he was running around like a little bitch. It just means he was momentarily having to put something together to deal with a strength of threat he had not envisaged. Up till this point French and British tank use had been somewhat piecemeal and most counter attacks quite badly co ordinated and never really presented the same level of threat that other attacks had produced. Panic can be internalized.
From a Combat Marines perspective.
It is not Panic, it is adapting quickly. To a bad situation.
He(Rommel) found the answer to the problem, quickly. Without loss of hope(ie panic).
The biggest thing I see.
Is the Germans came to rely on the 88 flak guns too often. And did not see solutions to the Guns weakness soon enough. ie the 88 flak's lack of mobility.
@@astropuffin4873 MHV did a video on the 88mm and it was always designed and to be able to engage tanks and function as medium artillery, and its crews were also trained accordingly. So it wasn't ad hoc to use them as AT guns really. In fact if it was used "ad hoc" there was no way for it to fight tanks, the anti-air flak shells wouldn't have a chance of penetrating any sort of real armor - what they fired were purpose designed anti-tank rounds.
Great video, but please shave
the beard lends credibility to any argument he makes about naval history
hell no that is magnificent beard, wish i had teacher with that beard to smack some culture in to me
You have to admit That Is a Truly Righteous Austrian beard that he has there. 🙂👍
Note: The British light tanks at the Battle of Arras would have been Light Tank Mark VIC's - about 6-8 of them.
I love your videos but I have a language problem
Can you make your videos in Arabic too
This would be wonderful because the Arab region is still in a military conflict
@@nazhit2254 Does he speak arabic though?
@@Uberdude6666 i'dont know
@@nazhit2254 I'd say that's a pretty important consideration if he is going to make videos in the language
@@Uberdude6666 lol Minor details...
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the Montgomery. Patton had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!
Remebering that thiis was the Second Battle of Arras. The First Battlee was fought 23 yr earlier duuring April 1917 , part of the actions including the Canadin victory at Vemy Ridge, the the two Battles at Bullicourt fought by the Australians.
Watching this after the Tank Museum's David Willey put up his talk on the battle. Both of the videos are informative and it's nice to see the differences and similarities.
Now That is a proper Austrian beard!
It's to disquise yourself as an Ottoman if they take Vienna.
DUCK, or you might Billotte! XD
11:58 can someone explain to me how the Matilda II was under armed?
I thought the 2-pdr was a very effective early war weapon have I missed something? if so please send me the source because I'm very interested about this subject.
No high explosive shell for the 2lb gun
@@patttrick Explosive shells were ineffective and unecessary
glorious beard, bro
Is this were the legend were supposedly rommel had a battery of 88s turned at the oncoming Matilda coum in france?
Yes the myth goes that the 8.8 was only for AA and then Rommel supposedly just shat out the idea that the 8.8 can kill tanks and so he did and so they did
It’s not true
@@looinrims AP rounds were to chip away at defensive formations like pillboxes and Maginot. Not for tanks. That was Rommel's idea.
@@crhu319 uh huh, and the 8.8 SP half track shooting up T-26s in Spanish Civil War was what? A figment of the imagination of both sides?
No, Rommel didn’t come up with it randomly as legend has
Rommel is quite right to call this fight the "so called" Battle of Arras. One can suspect that it was only a pin stroke to protect the retreat of 3 British divisions still to the east of this position and threatened to see their road to Dunkirk cut off by the German advance.
As shown on this map from Frieser's book "Blitzkrieg legend", the British attack was repelled after only 50 minutes (between 15:30 and 16:20).
www.39-45strategie.com/fileadmin/images/39-45/Articles_historiques/Arras/arras21mai40.jpg
The rest of the fighting was only the German counter-attack and the protection of the British right flank by the 3rd DLM against the attempt of encirclement on the part of the Totenkopf division.
Frieser is a serious and credible source.
Yeah but it worried the Germans enough for them to halt.
Read this as "Darkest of Days"
"We've got to stop this confederate attack! Quick, take this assault rifle!"
I remember having a lot of fun with that game
Somebody else actually played that game and liked it?!?!
Also: given assault rifle, faced with 30+ enemies, replaces it with lever action Henry to make it a fair fight.
2:30 - - - "A neighboring division has this problem. Some run away and panic"
My note: That was SS Totenkopf - maybe in that moment still a regiment, later definitely becoming a division
Our ass.
Use some calibers! I assume the PAK at that time was the 35 mm PAK which was unable to penetrate the Matilda IIs and heavy French tanks. Also mentioning that most Matilda IIs as Infantry Tanks were armed with HE and Smoke rounds which made them very effective vs infantry but not tanks would have been good I think.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Pak_36
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II
There was no high explosive shell for the Ordnance QF 2-pounder Matilda II tank gun available. One of the most serious shortcomings of the 2-pdr was the lack of a high-explosive shell, especially when the 2-pdr was the main gun of a tank; this was very important when a tank was being used for infantry support, leaving it with only its machine gun for anti-personnel use. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2-pdr, but never produced.
The guns were never equipped with High Explosive rounds, which would have given the gun some capability against un-armoured targets. The shells had been designed, but were not introduced because it was felt that the small amount of explosive contained in such a small shell (which weighed about the same as the popular Mills bomb hand grenade) would be ineffective. This proved to be a problem in combat when duels broke out between opposing anti-tank gun units. It also presented a major problem for armoured vehicles equipped with the gun, which could not deal with opposing anti-tank guns and their crews at distances beyond the range of their machine gun.
11:29 love that quote. Just one of those lines that make us love David Fletcher and his narration.
Have i ever told you how i love Rommel
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the careful Monty. He often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. But being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the balance of both!
It is fashionable to criticize Rommel to day, long after the lived reality just as many ignorantly do so about Monty (who was much more careful but often at the front too). It was there presence at the point of intensity and their quick decisions that saved the day, as you yourself so well explained. Your point is not wrong but it lacks the understanding that different talents are expressed in different ways. Patton was the worst in that he often did NOT follow agreed upon plans leaving his allies in the lurch, far more than Rommel and definitely the Montgomery. Patton often had no idea about planning operations with proper support. Being at the front he DID have the energy and presence to make things happen. Underrated Monty had the best balance of both!