The Terrifying Power Of The Panzer Mk III And The Nazi Blitzkrieg | Greatest Tank Battles | Spark
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 січ 2023
- At the outset of World War II, the Germans pioneer a new form of mobile armored warfare. This is the story of the famed Nazi Blitzkrieg, as thousands of panzers burst through terrain thought impassable to conquer Western Europe in a matter of weeks.
---
Documentary series re-creating some of the world's greatest tank battles.
---
Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech & engineering videos: goo.gl/LIrlur 🚀
Join the Spark Channel Membership to get access to perks:
/ @sparkdocs
Find us on:
Facebook: / sparkdocs
Instagram: / spark_channel
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#Spark #WWII - Наука та технологія
Hell yes! I love when every 10 minutes, they give me a recap of the past 10 minutes! Just in case I forgot what happened in the past 10 minutes!
Don't forget the ads every 7 minutes
"History" gets dumber by the day
Totally agree. These reminders are an insult to the audience. Also the repeated overuse of the same computer game 'battle' sequences is tiresome. A pity as the commentary is not bad.
Crap video.
Because they knew you have the retention span of a goldfish. You fucking idiot.
Heinz Guderian was really a mobile warfare genius. He had a grasp of the potential of the tank like Napoleon had a grasp of the corps system.
a grasp of the corps system...and the use of artillery...
Yes and a good thing hitler was a idiot, ir must have been hard for his men to be betrayed by a complete fool who let them freeze in their summer uniforms
What made the German tank that much better that the French was the turret layout had a 3 man crew, a gunner to aim the gun , a loader to reload after every shot, and a commander to direct which targets to shoot at a man for each job and there was better communication with the driver and radio operator that were also in close proximity, where the French Tank had a one man turret with the tanks commander doing all three jobs, Giving orders, aiming the gun, and reloading and the other crew all isolated away from each other ,
Featuring David Fletcher's eyebrows in their early larval stage.
Terrifying power of the panzer MKIII? A lot of the German tanks used in France were actually Chec T35 and T 38s plus a bunch of panzer MK IIs. The Germans were actually low on MK IIIs and MK IVs
These were also early models without the long barreled 50mm L60 used later on.
The Germans were under armed until 42.
😂😂😂😂
I believe that's one of the reasons they got through the Ardennes small roads better than 4? Years later with the Tigers and Panthers.
@@davidlafranchise4782 weather and completely different situation, by 1944 the Allies had some serious experience and power.
Panzer III wasn't exceptionally good. But the Germans did understand really well - the composition of the Panzer Division and formation of even larger units: Panzer Corps and Panzer Group (later Panzer Armies). That was really German Excalibur which they used with invariable success in the first half of the war. 100-150 thousand men, fully motorized, having fast moving heavy artillery in support and Panzers as their spearhead, with the close air support of Stukas. That was wonder weapon against which there was no remedy. The Soviets did that but with staggering cost of human losses. By the way, Soviet tank armies were roughly an equivalent of the German Panzer Corps, they never were equal to the Panzer Group at the beginning of the war. And for the whole war Soviet Tank armies greatly suffered from the absence of fast moving heavy artillery. Simply there was none. The famous reputation of Katyushas was not because they were such a wonder weapon but they were on the basis of trucks and fast moving. Which at least partly allowed to compensate the absence of fast moving artillery.
Ergonomically, the Panzer III was the best tank the Germans built. Internal intercoms, relatively spacious crew spaces, three man turret (just about all of its contemporaries were one or two man turrets). It was the best tank of the war until 1942, when it would be eclipsed by later T-34s, and the Sherman. By that time, longer barrel Panzer IV's were starting to arrive on the scene, and starting to supplant even the long-barrel 5 cm Panzer IIIs.
@@stuartdollar9912 But the Panzer III chassis was still great , and so the Germans used them to build StuGs, which turned out to be even more important than the Panzer IV to the Wehrmacht as armored fighting vehicles.
@@tvgerbil1984 I'm aware. Germany would have been far better off developing better PZ IVs and StuGs rather than waste resources on the Panther and Tiger (let alone, the King Tigers, Mauses, and other ridiculous late war developments.
@@tvgerbil1984 but the stug was not a tank. It was part of the artillery support for ordinary infantry divisions and manned by artillerymen.
@@thomasbaagaard In the Wehrmacht, all the tanks were allocated to the Panzer Divisions and the Infantry Divisions only got StuGs. For the poor old infantrymen facing thousands of T-34s on the Eastern Front, they hardly cared whether StuGs were tanks or not. If the StuGs could stop the T-34s rushing at them, the StuGs were better tanks than any real tanks they never had.
This tactic had a major flaw which was exposed at Tobruk separate the the tanks from the infantry and it all goes to poo Rommel was stunned by the brilliance of the 9th division and despite a huge advantage Rommel had no answer
Did you mention it was Von Manstein's plan to go through the Ardennes?
They didn't even mention how French Tank Ace Pier Billot faught the Germans at Stonne and destroyed 13 panzers with his Char B1 alone.
Thanks!
Panzer III of the 1940's were armed with the Kwk36 37mm gun which was literallly a joke. Hell it was called the Army door knocker later on because how ineffective it was at knocking down enemy tanks. In terms of AT performance, the Germans were nowhere near as capable in the early 1940's as they were later on. And the reason Germans dominated the French has little to do with their tanks firepower but rather the fact every single German tanks had radios, 5 men crew which divided the workload on the crew which in turn gave them far better battlefield flexibility and the close co operation with the Luftwaffe. Germans didn't win the battle with superior firepower but rather with better tactics and the overall incompetence on the Allied side.
Exactly. This silly standard narrative must end. "The mighty Mk III" with long barelled guns?
Yep this is just a Bs Video. Overall the PZ III was inferior to most Allied Tanks. This is the Reason they even used the 88 as Anti Tank Guns since their Tanks could not penetrate most Allied Tanks mostly not the Mathilda MK2 or the Char. Also Germany did not even had so many Panzer III during the Invasion of France. At this Point most Tanks where still the PZ I and II in various Variants.
@@susakuzero in 1940 it was roughly equivalent to British cruiser tanks, but better armed than many French tanks apart from the relatively small number of S35 and B1s and the dozen D2s. However, that neglects the role of AT, artillery, etc.
13:34 the most feared allied tank was the Char I, ----- 36:10 the most tank that cause the Germans most nervousness was the Matilda. LOL
Yes, with 78 mm armor, but only armed with a 40mm gun. It was later called Queen of the Desert.
If only. If only the British had built a larger turret ring into the Matilda II. If only the British had a liberty engine and a stronger transmission in the Matilda II. If only the Matilda II had more machine guns. If only…
Thanks you sir.
Shares you're 📂 file's
Didn’t realize the French had T-34s
This series leaves quite a bit to be desired.
But why was this series cancelled?
Fascinating the parallel universe of the current era where anti tank weaponry has essentially rendered the 'tank'.. obsolete
Well now, what do we have here, it's one of the History Channel's poorly done animated WW2 tv series with tons of inaccuracies, and to point out what was stated in the video about German armour, the number and types of German Panzers used that lead to the Battle and the Fall of France in May - June 1940 were 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s.
the frickin commercials!
Why was this show cancelled?
Why the long pauses??
MP40
ACAV
T-34
2023...drones + missiles + big guns...dominate the battlefields.
French pilots reported back many times of an insane traffic jam in the Ardennes.... their commanders simply didnt believe them...
thank you . ( 2023 / June / 03 )
The French ignored the German doctrine in Poland, based defeat of Polish armies on its weakness in general. But they tasted the medicine themselves just 9 month later, the West did not learn anything from fighting in Poland. And the war would be over in 1939 if the West just fulfill their obligations of alliance with Poland.
Why did Hitler stop from finishing off British at Dunkirk. Hitler did stop. When he did not have too. Why do "you" think?
Hitler did not want war with Britain. He wanted the British to join him in the fight against the Soviets.
Hitler stopped, because he expected a large allied counter-attack intended to cut of and encircle the spear head of his panzer armies that had reached the French coast. That would have turned the situation in favor of the allies. Therefore, he wanted to secure the supply lines to his tanks before letting the tank brigades advance further. It turns out, the Brits ran immediately after losing the battle of Arras and never really tried to win this war.
He thought the British were trapped.
About 1/3 of German tanks had broken down, 1/3 damaged or destroyed, logistics in a mess, and they had come across intense defensive action by French units. Whilst Rommel and Guderian were gung ho, it's really not clear if it would have gone well for them and quite possibly it would not have done.
@@kilianklaiber6367 the UK landed additional troops in France in this period and after Dunkirk.
Thousands?
Edward "Three Finger's" Snowden......
It turns out that the Panzer Mark III was not really so terrifying. The heavy French and British tanks (Matilda 2) had larger guns and armour. The German anti tank guns couldn't destroy the Matildas!?
I don't grasp why the Brits thought that they had lost the war after fighting and losing a single large battle at Arras? They lost 60 tanks!?
I think that this is not entirely honest. It seems to me that they were not willing to risk their lives in order to save the French from defeat. I think the British decision to run was an act of betrayal.
Video completely ignores German air superiority and highly effective close air support. German airpower 5600 aircraft, Allies less than 3000. Germans lost 1200 aircraft about 20%, Allies 2200 about 70%.
German doctrine: war of movement, bypass strongholds, dedicated panzer divisions supported by mobile infantry, highly effective close air support. British/French doctrine: Tanks used as infantry support, static defence. Allies had no answer to German tactics.
@@goldreserve 0:28 "the allies send thousands of their own tanks against the advancing panzers"
Must have been a different WW2 than I'm aware of!!
@@annpeerkat2020 True, in the battles described in this documentary, the Allies send less than 100 tanks "against the advancing Germans".
O.K. I have watched the video a second time in order to spot something I have missed and need to correct my opinion. This is what I have missed.
The allies had a huge numerical superiority. However, the attacker usually needs a significant numerical advantage in order to succeed. 3:1 is the standard if you are attacking the enemy in fortified positions.
3.5 Million allied soldiers vs. 2.4 Million German soldiers.
Do not forget that the Germans were also fighting against the Dutch and Belgian armies that mounted a tough resistance! They do not figure in these numbers!
14 000 allied artillery pieces vs. 7500 German artillery Guns.
3600 allied tanks vs. 2500 German tanks.
It turns out that both the French Char B1 and the British Matilda 2 were superior to the most formidable German tank Panzer III in terms of armour and fire power.
But after the allies lost lost roughly 130 tanks in three significant battles, the Brits conclude that the war is inevitably lost? Please give me a break, that's ridiculous!
According to the documentary, the French lost 29 light tanks "FCM 36" in the battle of Sedan.
The French lost 33 heavy Char B1 tanks at the battle of stonne.
The Brits lost 60 tanks at the battle of Arras.
60 + 33 + 29 = 122 lost allied tanks!
These losses are insignificant in relation to the total number of tanks and I am not even considering the lost German tanks!
3600 - 122 = 3478 allied tanks >> 2500 German tanks!
O.K. I have to correct myself. The French lost 134 tanks at the battle of "Flavien" - I am not sure, whether I spelled the name of the town correctly.
So the allies lost 256 tanks. This still gives them a formidable numerical superiority 3344 >> 2500 tanks without considering the lost German tanks.
I stand by my conclusion. The USSR suffered much larger losses within the first few weeks of operation Barbarossa and they didn't quit!
The Blitzkrieg was German. Not Nazi. Guederian came up with the concept. Heinz was not a member of the Nazi party.
I thought it was Fuller, Liddel-Hart, Tschcachevsky (spelling?) and De Gaulle.
Britain & France made war on Germany 8-9 months before Germany retaliated--Why?-Because his problem was a HUGE INTERNATIONAL REGIME on Germany’s border and it needed urgent elimination...So Britain told Poland to tell Germany “F OFF” Britain has your back---Germany turns around and shoves Britain and France in the pool with one arm😂
Germany had mostly luck. But they got the bill at the End with some nice BBQ like in Dresden where many Weiswursts where getting cocked perfectly.
@@susakuzero Germany was a amazing success story despite losing the war. To go from a total economic collapse to taking on half the world and almost winning. Keep in mind, the german armed forces were way behind the allies in numbers, logistics and technology. With all these disavantges they stuffed the english and butt raped the french all while fighting in africa and taking on the massive soviet warmachine. Fast forward, Germany is the 4th richest nation in the world with one of the highest qualities of life. The germans are fucking amazing super humans. Too bad im not German:(
@@Uthandol
Sry there is so much wrong here but let me break it down.
Germanys colapse after WW1: The Colapse was not even that bad as some sugested and calling their recovery a miracle is way to overated. Yes Germany had a financal crisis but during this time most Countries had one. Germany was also giving lenency for their Reperations and they still had most of their Industrial Capacaty intact. The recovery also come under the Nazis with the price that their economy only worked on borowead Money and was later kept running by conquests. But if this would keept on going longer with no new Conquest the whole System would have colapsed just google Informations to the Mofo Bills.
the Military: The military was also not exept for the Kriegsmarine not in such a bad shape. Normals Weapons where still developt and Rearmament begann early. The Luftwaffe never realy existed during WW1 and was completly new. Only their Tank deveopment was halted. But the PZ3 for example their real first Medium Tank came with the help of Technological Exchange with the Soviets who realy helped Germany forward.
Germany was close to win: Not even remotly close. Yes they first beat France which had different reasons of all sort. But overall they would have lost. When Germany peaked in 42 the Soviets had barly begann to start their War Mashine and from this Year one the Soviets begann to outproduce Germany more and more by every Year. The same goes for Manpower. In 42 Germany had rached the breaking point where it was no longer posible to keep up with their Enemys and it was going downhill from there. And lets not even bring up the US. Overall it would have neded a Miracle and Italy and Japan had also needed to do much better to make this happen.
Germany today: Yes but this was also thanks to masive help from the West who suported West Germany after WW2 in every way posible since this was for the US their prestigious Pet Project in the Cold War. Same thing with Japan which provited extremly from the suport of the West which both Countries get since they where seen as the Bulwarks on the Front against the rise of Comunism.
@@susakuzero So, lets break this down point by point. Ok, so what you are saying about the TOTAL economic collapse of Germany 1929 is going against not only actual facts that anyone can dig up on google but hundreds of thousands of historians AND the eyewitness accounts AND filmed documentation? I am not going to insult you, but you are calling the sun purple here. Can you please supply ANY credentials to explain how you arrive at such a different conclusion to the rest of reality? Ill actually listen. Well move on to the rest after you supply me with the information requested.
That total bull
An interesting thing about WW2 armored warfare, is the greatest success, often went to the side with the less powerful tanks. In France, the German Pzk 1, II, III, IV and the Czech tanks, were inferior to the French Char bis and the British Mk II Matilda. In Operation Barbarossa, the T34 and KV I were superior to all German tanks. The Germans prevailed with superior strategy, training and tactics in France and in Operation Barbarossa. Yes, I know the Germans were stopped at Moscow, but they were exhausted, overextended and under supplied. Later on the war, the Soviets and Western Allies did not have tanks as powerful as the Tiger I and II, or the Pzk V Panther. With numbers, tactics and air power they both prevailed. The most numerous German tank? The Pzk IV. The most produced and successful vehicle? The Stug III and IV.
The German Tanks in France where mostly shit. The sucess was not thanks to the Tanks but the superior Cordination with Radios which the France and British not had. France still used Flag Signals for example. Also the close Cordination with the Luftwaffe who destroyed most Allied Tanks with their Stukas or with the 8,8 Flak who was used as Anti Tank.
Great observation that the side with the less impressive tanks often won the WWII campaigns. By the time the Germans had the Panthers and Tigers, they were losing to the Western Allies equipped with Shermans, and losing to the Soviets with mostly T-34s. The outcome of the war was never really about "tank vs. tank" as this video might imply.
I disagree. As others pointed out, the "inferior" tanks of World War II, were often actually superior.
On paper, the Panzer III and IV were the inferior tanks, based on how much armor they have and how many inches of armor their main gun can shoot through. But the Panzer III and IV were actually much superior to anything the French and even the British had. On tank on tank battles, most of the time, the side that got in the first hit won. It did not have to be a fatal hit. Tanks with less powerful guns were not "door knockers". They were actually "Very Loud Door Knockers". Crews would get rattled. A driver might make a mistake and drive into spot that disables the tank. A loader might grab the wrong type of shell. The gunner might miss. The commander might start to make mistakes.
The best tanks of World War II, the Panzer III, IV, V and VI, and the Sherman had four things:
1. A five man crew. Two in the hull, a driver, a bow machine gunner and radio operator (the more critical job, to fix radio problems that would crop up). And three in the turret, a commander, a loader and a gunner. This allowed the tank to react as quickly as possible, increasing the odds of getting in that all critical first strike. T-34 had only two men in the turret which delayed the reaction time of the tank and reduced the situational awareness of the overly worked commander.
2. A working radio. A working radio was critical. The side with working radios could coordinate it's tanks together. The French tanks had radios. They just didn't have working radios. In general, once the battery ran down, the French commanders did not understand the importance of radios and did not bother to get the batteries replaced. They envisioned World War I type battles of short pushes, of five to ten miles at a time at most. Where tank commanders had the time to dismount and discuss what they should do over the next few hours. Even if the war was like that, which it wasn't, radios would still have been useful. The lack of radios greatly lessen the value of all the French tanks and the Russian tanks, at least during the first few years of the war when most Russian tanks did not have radios.
3. Excellent optics, which allowed more accurate shooting, increasing the odds of getting in that all critical first hit. Russian tanks had a reputation of always missing the first shot, largely due to bad optics.
4. A large enough fuel tank. In a separate compartment from the crew, for God's sake. A lack of large enough fuel tanks limited the range of French tanks and often allowed them to be easily defeated. Being out of fuel was often the prelude to many soon to be destroyed armor units during the war. Like destruction of the Panzer 2 and Panzer Lehr division during the battle of the Bulge in two days by the American 2nd Armor division. And to the destruction of entire French armor divisions in 1940 at various times.
Also, German crews were better trained.
The great disadvantage of the German tanks was that most of their tanks were not Panzer IIIs or IVs. They were mostly Panzer I's and II's. But even these tanks had radios, could coordinate together and were good at getting away from superior tanks if they had to. They were often good enough to allow their crews to survive long enough to get a Panzer III or IV later in the war. And while the Panzer IIIs and IVs were few in numbers, there were enough and the Allies didn't have any. The Panzer III best at fighting other armor vehicles. The Panzer IV best at fighting non armored targets. Good to have some of both.
The Germans had to rely on the Czech Panzer 35s and 38s, the main tank of two German Panzer divisions, one of them Rommel's. While the big disadvantage is perceived to the use of bolts instead of welding, which did increase the odds of wounds to the crew. A more critical problem was the smaller turrets, which only fit two men instead of three. Still, they had radios and good optics and were pretty good tanks, effective in France and Russia in 1941. But never the equal of a Panzer III.
The Sherman had, five man crews, good radios, good radios, adequate optics, power traverse turrets (good at getting the first hit).
Precision parts, a characteristic of American weapons but of no one else during the war. This allowed the production of huge numbers of Sherman tanks (more important than the huge resources America had). And aircraft and other weapons. And which also allowed easy repair and replacement of parts, without the need to ship the tanks back to the factory, which Germans could do, at a great cost in armor availability, but Americans could not. The down types of German tanks, which their tank was shipped back to Germany for repair no doubt contributed to the survival of German tank crews, and the loss of German infantry who often had to fight without enough armor support.
And not too heavy for engineers to build temporary bridges over rivers for the Sherman tanks to use.
Later in the war wet storage which usually prevented Sherman tanks from burning up. No other tank in the world had this.
It was tough being an American infantry man, as it was in any army. But at least they generally had armor support when tasked with conducting an attack. German infantry often had to do without.
The success of Panzers V and VI was greatly helped by them appearing which Germany was largely on the defensive. Temporary bridges thrown up by engineers had difficulty with Panzer Vs and great difficulty with Panzer VI. But both could usually use permanent bridges, even if they were built before the war for civilian use.
@@joeelliott2157 If you read my post, I said "less powerful" tanks.
The French had strong tanks, even better armored than the Germans and more powerfully gunned, but they could not withstand the hits from the 88 mm.
They were also one-man turreted, without radios. The tank that fires first usually wins the engagement 3/4 of the time. Trust me, those French tanks were almost never getting off the first shot.
@@stuartdollar9912 very true lack of radios for coordination was a huge disadvantage for the French tanks.
88mm. Werent that common if at all present during the battle of france
Bad logical support.
@@imreallynoob8311 corps or Army level asset.
24 AA battalions deployed in 1940 France. (Wikipedia) I did not research how many 88 per battalion. At least 16 is my guess.
Too much repeating of scenes. Not worth watching.
Dunkirk was the most important battle ... the Germans lost the war there.
And then it didn’t.
Panzer III was powerful but the British Six Pounder AT guns took them apart like ManPads in Ukraine.
PZ III was mostly Garbage. It could not do its Job against France or British Tanks in france and was just a Joke in Rusia. And thats for most German Tanks. Their Sucess where never the Tanks but superior Comunication and Cordination with at this point good Luftwaffe.
The six pounder wasn't deployed in quantity until 1942, so not very relevant to the video.
Thousands? I doubt they had more than a few hundred in 1940. Cobblers.
French army was a shame.
The entire world? Cobblers.
Lol! “Panzer III Terrifying”???
Blitzkrieg could be terrifying in 1939 and 1940.
What is the purpose of your channel if you are rebroadcasting other people’s productions? Do you have the copyright?
Very poor documentary. Blue peter like
All the germans tanks did not last the first year in russkie land
A great tank for 1940. "Terrifying"? Nonsense.
This sounds like the Greatest Tank Battles series.. LAME rehash total clickbait.
Wehrabooism intensifies
The truth and thje fact is this: German lost, Russians won.
Germans always won in all battles with Russians. But in later stages of war, germans were heavely outnumbered and short in supplies.
@@7118624, The Russians were trusting that the Germans were not going to attack them, the two of them had a pact in common, the Russians were unprepared for that massive attack for being stupid, once Barbarossa started the Russians had to suffer big losses because of their stupidity. Once they got over the initial shock they stopped the Germans and started using their old strategy used against Napoleon.
@@AngelGonzalez-pd4cn Russia was unprepared? I mean they got only like 20,0000 Tanks and 10,000 planes but yes they surprised because they want to attack first.
@@rogi_itsumi5370 many of those tanks and aircraft were obsolete, obsolescent or broken. It was in a period of rearmament.
@@wbertie2604 Obsulete but still better then germanys tanks like panzer 1 and panzer 2
why do you repeat the old stuff without including new research? Poland was prepared for war and did everything to escalate when the Wehrmact attacked. These are the facts.
How Poland was prepared for the war with Germany since they could not mobilize its armies until 2 days before the war began. The Brits and French told them not to provoke Germans with mobilization.
@@albertwolanski7688 I see your point. But the only guy in that German government who genuinely wanted to deescalate was foreign minister Ribbentrop. He wanted to come to Warsaw but the Polish government refused to receive him. Was this avoiding provocations, smart, or just another good advise from the Brits? If the army was not prepared for what followed, then this action was a crime against the Polish people by their government, the Brits, the French, then by the Germans and last by the Soviets. Another European tragedy and perhaps avoidable.
FRENCH CANADIAN 'ENGLISH' TRANSLATOR??? NOT GOOD. HAHAH