Why the Germans had the Tactical Advantage early in WW2 | Tank and Anti-Tank Warfare
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Turns out the German tactical advantage early in the war was due to a couple of simple reasons. And because they had an advantage in their tank (panzers) and their anti-tank guns, it meant that the Allies and the Soviets had a real problem early in the war. In North Africa, the British used out of date doctrines and inferior guns (like the 2-Pounder), while the Soviets had some good tanks (like the T-34), but sent them off on their own to get destroyed. Without a clear Combined Arms Doctrine, the Allies were simply at a disadvantage. But by the mid to late war, this changed, thanks mostly to the fact that the Allies and Comintern were finally able to mobilize. Yes, early German mobilization prior to WW2 is the key to this, as you will see in the video.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Here’s some other videos you may be interested in -
Operation Battleaxe • The REAL Operation Bat...
Suvorov and Keitel's "Preemptive Strike" 1941 Idea • Why You NEED to Think ...
4 Statements the Traditional Narrative gets WRONG about WW2 German and Italian Divisions • 4 Statements the Tradi...
Prokhorovka at Kursk is NOT the Biggest Tank Battle of the WW2 Eastern Front • Prokhorovka at Kursk i...
Kampfgruppen in WW2 • Kampfgruppen in WW2
My video entitled “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it”
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
Check out the pinned comment below for more information, notes, links, and sources. Also, please consider supporting me on Patreon and help make more videos like this possible / tikhistory
Some pictures in the video come from Bovington Tank Museum (TankFest 2018).
*NOTES and SOURCES*
I’m fully aware that the armour thickness of the tanks and the gun penetration values vary per make and model. I’m also aware that the exact millimeters may be out depending on which book you use. I’m also aware that every single shell is different - since that’s how the universe works. However, it doesn’t affect anything, since the difference between 51mms and 50mms is irrelevant if you have a gun which can defeat it.
And this is why armour thickness is not really as important as some people may think. There’s many ways to disable a tank. Disabling a tank is a kill, so long as you win the overall fight. This is why having more ‘alright’ tanks is better than having fewer good tanks, and why light tanks are absolutely important on the battlefield. They’re still relevant and can do a lot of damage to infantry and anti-tank guns.
But of course, anti-tank guns and infantry are super-important too. It may not be glamorous, but a big gun hidden behind a bush is just as deadly as a gun mounted in a tank turret. It’s also significantly cheaper too. Yes, they have their downsides, but so do tanks if used incorrectly.
Overall, I’m of the opinion that tanks are not as important as the tactics used, and are only part of the whole combined-arms process. If you don’t have all your weapons working in sync with one another, the enemy has the advantage. This is one of the big reasons why the Germans had an advantage early war - their enemies hadn’t figured out combined arms warfare. So, I guess the lesson here is: don’t bring just rocks to a rock, paper and scissor fight.
The early war German tanks were also very effective. They weren’t “superior”, but the 75mm gun on the Panzer 4 gave them the advantage. Same with the 50mm Pak guns. This is why early German mobilization was so important and was the main reason why they had the advantage in the early war. The Germans started mobilizing in 1935, but had actually pumped a lot more money into their armament production since 1933. Military spending went from 1% of national income in 1933 to 10% in 1935. “- a bigger and quicker increase than ever seen before in peacetime in a capitalist state.” Rees, L. “The Holocaust: A New History.” Penguin Books, 2017. Page 92
Also, it’s worth saying that I’m not a Wehraboo. The Germans are not “superior” just because they have one or two advantages due to them mobilizing earlier than the other powers. If anything, this proved that the Germans weren’t just inherently better, because once the Allies learnt their lessons, the Germans lost those advantages.
Some pictures in the video come from Bovington Tank Museum (TankFest 2018).
Links to other videos mentioned in the video are in the video description.
The Battlestorm Operation Crusader Script is currently 74,319 words. Have been working on it today, and hope to have the script finished in a matter of days. Then it’s time to start editing the video. Don’t worry, it is coming.
*Sources*
Fletcher, D. "British Tanks: British-Made Tanks of World War II." Osprey Publishing, Kindle.
Fletcher, D. "Crusader and Covenanter Cruiser Tanks 1939-45." Osprey Publishing, 2007.
Henry, C. "British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-45." Osprey Publishing, 2004.
Henry, C. "The 25-pounder Field Gun 1939-72." Osprey Publishing, 2011.
Isaev, A. "Dubno 1941: The Greatest Tank Battle of the Second World War." Helion & Company, 2017.
Newsome, B. "Valentine Infantry Tank 1938-45." Osprey Publishing, 2016.
Perrett, B. "Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-44." Osprey Publishing, 2009.
Perrett, B. "Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank 1936-45." Osprey Publishing, 2007.
Pitt, B. “The Crucible of War Volume 1: Wavell’s Command. The Definitive History of the Desert War." Cassell & Co, 2001.
Pitt, B. “The Crucible of War Volume 2: Auchinleck’s Command. The Definitive History of the Desert War." Cassell & Co, 2001.
Playfair, I. "The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume I, The Early Successes against Italy." The Naval & Military Press LTD, 1954.
Playfair, I. "The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume II, The Germans come to the Help of their Ally [1941]." The Naval & Military Press LTD, 1956.
Zaloga, S. "BT Fast Tank: The Red Army's Cavalry Tank 1931-45." Osprey Publishing, 2016.
Zaloga, S. "M3 & M5 Stuart Light Tank 1940-45." Osprey Publishing, 2009.
Zaloga, S. "T-26 Light Tank: Backbone of the Red Army." Osprey Publishing, 2015.
Zaloga, S. "T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941-45." Osprey Publishing, 2010.
Some gun penetration statistics from - www.wwiivehicles.com/
Thanks for watching!
TIK Didn't they also have good experienced reichswehr officers at divisional level
The officers have nothing to do with this, beyond the doctrine part.
And sir, yes sir!
Yes! There is reason to wait for Mondays!!! Thanks for proving me right TIK.
Germans were predominately still fielding the Pak 36 till 1942-43, not the 50mm, as production levels were only ~200 pieces a month (Operation Barbarossa, N. Askey). German tanks were most certainly not "better," the 50mm MKIII were still the minority in North Africa up until about 1942-43, in Barbarossa they were only really issued in number to Guderian's Panzer Gruppe. The Panzer IV's short barreled 75mm was an infantry support gun, not meant for anti-tank where it had limited capabilities, which is why they installed the long barreled L/43, which didn't see large issue until 1943.
A couple extra points as to why the Germans were successful:
One, they'd practiced for combined arms warfare since before even Hitler took over, and then a lot after they withdrew from the Versailles Treaty and began expanding their military; this allowed a huge number of highly trained and skilled officers and NCOs who served in their panzer units.
Two, combined arms of including infantry and artillery organic to a panzer division, which allowed unit commanders to mold combined armored task forces.
Three, radios. Every German tank had a radio, every German half track, etc. They had forward observers for calls for fire by responsive artillery, they had forward air controllers to call in air strikes, etc. Their enemy, especially the Red Army, did not. In fact, the main problem with the Red Army's failure in 1941-42 in combined arms warfare had a lot to do with the poor coordination that came from lack of radios. Communication is key in warfare, and early war the Germans dominated. They could deliver clear instructions to individuals who had the ability to act on the information.
I think you've missed a crucial 4th reason. Small unit leadership. The Germans regularly show high initiative and leadership at the local level. They have a great ability to improvise rapidly, form combined arms kampfruppe, react quickly to changes etc etc. All the Allied armies eventually learn this, but it takes time.
True. The highly trained NCO Departement together with their doctrin of mission order was a distinctive advantage.
To add on to this point the Wehrmacht was losing 500 NCOs a week during Barbarossa. That quickly added up and did serious damage to the Wehrmacht’s offensive capabilities.
German tactical flexibility was often the key to their success and survival when they were caught wrong footed . They were very good at analyzing their mistakes and correcting them ,as well as their successes and exploiting the knowledge they had gained for the most part ! Top notch soldiers !
Love the new graphic presentation!
Yeah, trying something a bit different :)
4:27 made me laugh.
The M-1 Abrams was designed as a tank vs tank weapon. All our training was oriented towards killing tanks. Our combined arms training was almost nil. Desert Storm reinforced this concept. We would sit on a hill 4000 m from the Iraqi tanks (yes, I know, the supposed max range for the 105 mm M-1 tank gun was thought to be 2000 m but worked fine at 4000 m) and put DU rounds through 10 feet of sand berm and kill the T-72 behind them. If we ever get in a war with a serious contender (not something like Iraq who had idiots for leaders and had no understanding of armored tactics) we might regret this lack of combined arms training.
Seriously?? I mean, I can understand why the Abrams would be best sitting back and firing from afar in that scenario, but to hear that the military with the most money spent on it today has straight up neglected combined arms warfare is insane.
The training for combined arms is very expensive and the safety requirements make it almost useless. Doing close infantry support training with tanks is scary. I did it a couple of times when I was a Marine (74-78). The tanker cannot see very well and a mistake can mean a dead grunt. (That is why tankers call infantry "crunchies".) As an infantryman I spent more time watching the tanks than paying attention to the "enemy". This was with M-60 tanks, comparatively slow compared to the M-1. After the Marines I joined the Army (1975-2013) and as a jeep mounted scout (before the Hummer) we were terrified of operating with the M-1s. The M-1 could do 45 mph across the desert. We were in front of the M-1s and when they did an assault at speed we turned neurotic. An M-1 coming over a hill at full speed is a bad thing when you are in the way. In Iraq we sometimes operated with Bradley support (very rare, usually we just had the Hummers) and we hated them. Walk alongside a Brad in a town street and you will know why. Even the Hummers could be dangerous. I lost one of my platoon sergeants because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was crushed by an up-armored Hummer.
Combined arms training is extremely dangerous. Lots of moving parts and some of those parts cannot see. I remember reading something about Wehrmacht training casualties in 38-40. Extremely high. Maybe this is the reason they were so good at it, they were willing to accept the training losses while most countries would not. I doubt the Soviets would worry about it but they could not transport their infantry to keep up with the tanks during a training exercise.
Opps, Army 1979-2013.
I can absolutely see why it's not taught in the west then. The big problem is that this will come to bite hard when a proper war does break out. Surely practice could overcome these problems, and proper classroom training prior to going out on the field?
Also, infantry use AFVs. Surely they cooperate all the time? Do the same principles not apply??
Sorry for my ignorance :)
Congratulations on reaching 50K subscribers!
Thank you! Only just did it today :) very grateful to everyone
You earned it.
mako88sb ... and in only 8 short months later, TIK is at 80k!! LOVE it!!
Germany had another big tactical advantage: Post-WW1 Europe was one of waning empires and fragile emerging nation states. This was a unique transitional period in European geopoltics where a maverick power could use diplomatic posturing and intimidation in order to pick off these fragile nation-states one by one and gamble on knocking out these waning empires if they were to stand in its way - which is precisely what Hitler set out to do...
True and it is arguable that in some ways similar factors that have once again screwed the UK over applied then too, that being that the British frequently seem to both undervalue and underestimate their neighbors. Can't help but think that part of the reason why Britain pushed hardest of all to simply appease Germany and not knock the European boat is that they were then as now failing to truly identify the importance of the continent they are literally part of and treating it like an inconvenience to make go away to their peril. Worst part is that back then it was almost understandable as the Empire did still exist so there was still some reason to be focusing elsewhere though even then it was increasingly decreasing in economic relevance and becoming more of a distraction mostly because then as now increasing reliance on ships with combustion engines that burn fuel to move makes transport costs a huge factor that leads to trade tending to localize as much as possible simply due to delivery costs tending to increase as a function of distance reducing the competitiveness of distant suppliers vs local suppliers so long as local suppliers exist they will generally be more competitive unless they just suck at being efficient of course.
This was less important in the age of sail when ships used the wind and supply chains needed to use massive warehouses to buffer supplies and goods to get around the unreliability of said power source but by the 20th century ships largely burned coal leading to reliable delivery times as they could now produce power any time anywhere by setting fire to their fuel wind be dammed but a very real marginal cost per mile for transport, today it's liquid fuel but same applies there. It's worth noting also that initially, the reliability of the power source was the bigger driver, in fact, some earlier ships featured both coal-fired boilers and sails only relying on steam power when the wind failed them, of course, as steam engines were refined eventually the steam-powered screws began to significantly outperform sails allowing ships to become larger and travel faster than possible with sails thus they took over completely.
„Wir mögen dich nicht!“ - what a terribly rude thing to yell in battle! 😂
I'm certain that must be a breach of the Geneva Convention.
Sebastian what does it mean
"We don't like you!"
quite simply: "We don´t like you!"
I thought that was a implied messeage with every bullet and shell you fire at an enemy?
My father fought as part of the 1st Battalion Warchester Regiment in Northern Europe. He was an infantry man and was the number one on mortars, a medic and sniper. We know by the crossing into Belgium he was a stretcher bearer but by Arnham he was a sniper. There is a story he would tell us about being chased into a ditch by a tank, more than likely a panzer IV. He and a number of other men were keeping their head down there because the tanks machine gunners were strafing the ditch to keep the men in it. My father believed that the tankers in the German tank intended to basically grind the men there into the ground with their tracks. The tank had got away from it's infantry support so a PIAT man managed to get behind the tank because of a hedge and place a PIAT bomb in the engine block of the tank. My fathers used to tell us the nickname for a tank was a “coffin”.
Very interesting story! Thanks for sharing :) a tank used incorrectly will definitely become a coffin
Where's Warchester
If it comes to coffins... Soviet tankmen used to call the M3 Lee tank "БМ-6" or in English it's MG-6 which stands for "a mass grave for the six"...
Midlands England, It's a city that gives it;s name to the county of Warchestershire.
@@Dougtheslugmcdoug No it's not, Worcester is a city in the Midlands that gave it's mane tho the county of Worcestershire. Warchester doesn't exist in the UK
"And this one broke down because of British engineering."
Before Crusader, Auchinleck stockpiled a 50% reserve in tanks because he knew they'd lose a lot of them due to breakdowns. So, while I was joking, it has an element of truth to it
TIK Oh I know of the reliability issues of British tanks. If I recall, David Fletcher of the Tank Museum said British tanks "seemed to break down for the fun of it." I just liked the way you put it here. An excellent video, by the way!
This reminds me of the supply problems the British Army was having after Normandy during the advance accross France into Belgium and the Netherlands. The British built and sent some 200 heavy trucks to move supplies for the army, but they were found to have faulty engines due to improperly made pistons. Two hundred replacement engines were sent, only to be discovered that they had the same exact faulty pistons as the originals.
I think the real problem here (as with the radios at Arnhem) was that they were only discovering that there was a problem when they actually tried to use them for real ...
.
@@dongilleo9743 What is your source for this?
I like how you analyze in a resource and wider strategy way, people forget that war isn't won with only weapons. I like the book "why the allies won" by Richard Overy which analyses WW2 viewing social, economic, technogical and strategical points showing that wars are not won or lost by a single factor
Supporting artillery comes in handy as well, defensively it can be used to keep the tankers 'buttoned up', thus reducing their ability to see the battlefield, and offensively as it can suppress the enemy's infantry and anti-tank artillery.
Absolutely, yes
5:25 "And this one broke down due to British Engineering." *Laughs at Crusader's Air-intake positioning*
A good and informative video as always.
This channel doesn't have more subscribers only because British engineering
Don't make me use some harsh words
+TIK oh nein pls nein
50K is very good for a channel related to speaking "with strong english accent" about ww2.
Excited to see your first video on tanks - and it's a good one! An additional reason for Germany's early success might be found in better developed inter-tank communications. As has been mentioned below, a single tank has really poor visibility and therefore lacks awareness on the battlefield. Being able to communicate between tanks and combining each tank's limited perception of its surroundings into a more complete picture enables proper decision-making. With German tank units being equiped with radios down to the platoon level as early as 1937 and individual vehicles by 1938, gone were the times of having to lead a unit by sticking signal flags through a port hole.
Aren't harsh words against the Geneva Convention...
The Germans don't care about that
Only if they are soft pointed. These harsh words cause far more insidious damage.
Broke down due to british engineering ahhahahahhaha. In the words of Top Gear, "Just means the door is going to fall off"
You'd be surprised. Quite the norm during Crusader, which is why Auchinleck had a 50% tank stockpile in reserve, in case the British tanks broke down.
I've heard of the cronic unreliability but I didn't realise it was quitethat bad. BTW I highly reccomend the memoir "Tank action" by David Render if you haven't already read it. Amazing insight into tank combat in 30 corps.
i agree. great book
TIK, that 50 per cent unreliability figure is deserving of its own episode.
That’s a good point. I’ve always wondered about why the British did so badly in mechanical reliability in contrast to the Americans. I really think that much of it comes down to how many types they manufactured. The M3 Grant and M4 Sherman used effectively the same chassi (outside the engine, which had many screwy variants), as did the virtually all the 42-45 tank destroyers and armored artillery. I wonder if, by picking one chassi and working to perfect it, it allowed more chance to study and improve its features.
On the other hand, British armored design was madly scattershot.
"So, Rommel and co. came up with an advanced strategy that could defeat enemy armor..... It's called 'More Guns'."
Lol a very sophisticated strategy indeed.
Remember the other thing Clausewitz said:
War is very simple and at the same time extremely difficult.
@@alanpennie8013 Very true. Just the bluntness of the way the speaker said those lines and the set up of some extremely advanced tactics, and the "It's called 'more guns'," amused me.
TIK from what I have heard, different nations count losses and penetrations differently. For example Soviets count a mobility killed vehicle as lost for the battle, the Germans count a recovered vehicle (even if it was mobility killed in battle) as not a dead one. They also have different standards for penetration with Soviets demanding 75% of mass penetration, Germans using a sloped plate. Americans just want to see a hole through it. All 3 make sense, but are these little elements tainting our understanding of tank combat?
Well, the thing is that the Nazis only really counted the tanks that they had well and truly utterly lost, and that tended to go through a number of things really. For example, if a Sherman rolled up around the side of a panther and lobbed an APHE shell into the crew compartment, shredding the Krauts inside into fermented cabbage, the Nazis would not count it as a loss so long as they could get it back to a depot and get it overhauled and recrewed. It's part of why on the eastern front you would often have periods of no Nazi "tank kills" but whenever the soviets rolled over one of the depots, it would look like an entire battalion was massacred in an instant.
On the other end, one of the ways that they increased panther production was by turning all of the spare parts into panthers. Shockingly, this meant that there weren't many spare parts to fix the panthers that broke down. This is why the left so many Panthers scattered across the French countryside. American air power would bomb Nazi logistical networks and often get tons of engineering vehicles at the same time, which meant that when one of the Panther's two final drives snapped, the Nazis wouldn't have the engineering vehicles required to tow it or any spare final drives to attempt a field repair, so they just had to leave tons of Panthers lying around, perfectly workable* with the exception of the final drive. Those Panthers would be counted as losses even though nobody actually died.
*perfectly workable from the perspective of the Nazis. When the French salvaged them for their own armed forces they had rather different opinions.
Alexander Yordanov z
Not harsh words😭😭😭
Can't win a battle without them
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words.. **BOOM**
Good video. I knew about these circumstances previously but it was really good to see the information put so clearly and succinctly with the accompanying graphics as a visual aid.
MHV 's video Stormtrooper tactics is very good. He does mention that in 1918, new infantry doctrine stated the whole of the german infantry would be trained in stormtrooper tactics. The idea of concentration of force, penetration into the rear began here in a practical sense before theorists put the concept on paper. The addition and use of armor based on these tactics was additional firepower at the decisive point, your schwerpunkt. Another aspect is the training. Practice makes perfect and these tactics after practicing, and training the German Army 1939-1942 was probably the best trained in the world. They knew what they were doing, the Allies didn't. The losses prior to Barbarosa were not large enough to effect the quality of trained men. Once the losses in the east began to impact the thoroughly trained troops, quality was lost. Those men would be hard to replace and I don't think they ever did. I equate this idea by comparing Napoleon's army of 1805. After three years of training it is considered the best army he put together. Once losses and attrition took a toll on the trained French soldiers of this army, Napoleon's quality of troops was never as good again as the 1805 army and his later campaigns illustrated this deficiency.
The tactics you refer to were known at the time as "Hutier tactics". They were originally proposed by a Frenchman, called Capitaine Laffargue, in 1915. Contrary to popular belief, they were not first used by Hutier at Riga but by General Aleksei Brusilov in the eponymous Brusilov Offensive in 1916. This is the problem with the lack of information (in English, at least) on the Eastern Front in WWI. While Brusilov sustained pretty heavy casualties in his implementation of these tactics, he was ultimately quite successful. Contrast that with the contemporary Battle of the Somme... Stormtrooper tactics were just infiltration tactics, mostly at a squad or platoon level.
The difference between what was done in WWI and what Rommel did in WWII is that Rommel fought as a division (I have a source for this comment).
There's no good comparing this with Napoleon either. One of the key concepts of all of this is that Laffargue built his idea around the concept of a rolling artillery barrage. That required accurately sighted guns firing reliable long range ammunition which would (theoretically) land just ahead of the advancing troops. Too long and the barrage is wasteful and may be ineffective. Too short and well... you get the idea. It could not be done with a Napoleonic muzzle loader.
In any case, the Germans get the credit for a lot of things they didn't invent. This is just one example. They might have implemented these things well, they might even have improved them to the point that they became much more effective. But they didn't invent them. It's just part of the same od thing where we, in the West, for reasons only we know, believe everything the Germans tell us. That goes for WWI and double for WWII.
So, without a more in depth understanding of the French campaign of 1940, it's easy to see German superiority in tactics, command structure and worst of all, technical aspects such as weapons, when in fact, this is still largely the product of German wartime propaganda. It's certainly true that their victory in 1940 stunned the world, no one more so than the British. But nobody was in any doubt about what they were doing or how they were doing it. It's just that their success was magnified by a number of command structural failures within the French army. It just happened that the Germans were, in 1940, the polar opposite in philosophy and it worked. Make no mistake about it: the German operation of 1940 were extremely high risk. There were in infinite number of things that could have gone wrong and completely reversed their fortunes. The campaign was not decided by German superiority but but a whole bunch of factors.
@@thethirdman225 Thanks. Yes there is alot more to it. Each factor leads to another detailed discussion of what worked and what didn't. When after 5 years of airborne light infantry tactics and training, I was transferred to 2nd Armored Div and was assigned to train the US mech infantry how to take out soviet tanks and apc's. I was astounded that I knew more about where to hit and aim at soviet armor for maximum effect and the capabilities of soviet armor/bmp formations. Superior training? I'd like to think so, but damn this was supposed to be an armored division trained to fight soviet armor. Trying to keep things simple. Myself, I used and trained my squad and platoon in rommel infantry tactics during the 70's.
Thanks, TIK for another great video. I do recall reading that the Germans learnt many a lesson in refining Blitzkrieg during the Anschluss, Sudenteland, Saar, and Ruhr along with actual battles (Spanish civil war, Scandinavia, and even the battle of France).
In fact, I do believe they learnt valuable lessons during the various annexations before the outbreak of war that were just as important as the ones gained from battlefield experience. During the Anschluss, I recall reading an anecdote which described the chaos resulting from a lead tank breaking down which was part of a column. I cannot remember the exact lesson learnt, but I'm sure it was important.
i think we learned an even more important lesson
power hungry insects like the germans and russians need to be squashed early on
that is why china hasnt moved on taiwan, they know we will defend, and despite their BS they dont like their odds
The thing about needing tanks to fight other tanks really comes from later in the war towards the end. At the start most tanks were light, so light AT guns that could be rolled around by a crew of men on foot were able to destroy them. As the war went on, tanks got thicker armor, so AT guns had to become larger. Being larger made them heavier, so eventually the only way to move a gun a long distance was to tow it behind a motor vehicle. Once a vehicle was basically required for the gun to work it made more sense to have self-propelled guns since they were more mobile for both attacking and retreating. Once that was realized, having a distinction between tanks and "self-propelled anti-tank guns" became useless, so tanks were equipped with guns that could effectively shoot other tanks as well as soft targets. Also why American AT units disappeared after the war.
I'm a simple man. I see a TIK video, I press like!
Haha I see an Edward Troth comment and I like and heart
And we all know.
Not all heroes wear capes.
The KISS Principal is the only way forward in today's crazy world.
Yes
"More guns! Sorry, combined arms warfare...aka more guns."
Speaking as a combat veteran, that's probably the best description of modern warfare I've ever heard. He who brings the most guns to the fight, usually wins.
So what is the A-10 in all this?
All tanks are prone to damage when used without proper support or sound tactic doctrine. A modern example is Turkeys loss of tanks in the last years, when drove into cities on their own. Same principles was true in WW2: tanks had to be used with a good doctrine in place.
Turkey drove their tanks into cities alone? Are they insane!?!
Pretty similar to Russian debacle in Grozny in First Chechen War
An armoured force with all support can still be kept in check if the defenders can use the terrain in an effective way, just look up Battle of Longewala during 1971 Indo Pak War
Thats basically what the buzz says: and it is hard to come up with other reasons why Turkey would lose at least 10 tanks in a short period, when fighting Isis. They went into a war against a foe that in most part lacked sofisticated anti tank weapons, and absolute had no means to engage even fairly outdated tanks over any distance more then a few hundred meters. Granted, the Turkish tanks were not the last itteration of Leopard 2, but the fact stand: it was a fiasco.
I saw some footage of this happenig in Syria, too. Completely unsupported tanks in urban environments, being picked off by rpgs. And then they killed the crew with rifles and mgs when they tried to bail, because hey, no support to fire back anyway.
You are a genius your hard work is amazing, ive been waiting for someone in you calbre my whole life to explain the truth and facts great stuff i luv your battlestorm videos on Stalingrad. Top class 👍💪🇺🇸
I think air superiority and air support doctrine deserve a mention, as they also affected battles a lot.
This looks like something from military history visualised guy except for it is not from military history visualised guy.
Yeah, it does have the MHV vibe. But it's just the best way I could explain this concept without my ugly mug being in the way.
Both tik and mhv has the same appearance though
Hi Tik, this was an excellent video, well up to your usual standard.
This is just a minor point, you probably know this and just misspoke: Percy Hobart didn't invent anything in the 79th, he only ran the show. 'Hobart's Funnies' were invented by other people.
Damn.. I wanted to send you an email on my thought about this, so that you'd read it, but now I fear it'll go unnoticed. I see and respect your decision to stay neutral in the left right war, but its a shame it makes some unable to email you. And I get that it's a business email, but where else would I send this? I'm too broke for food, let alone patreon. :( But with that out of the way, perhaps you may just see this, and perhaps you might find it to be useful conformation of everything you talked about. As if the history you talked about wasn't enough.
So I can tell you as a former artilleryman, that combined arms is EVERYTHING in warfare. Yes, King of Battle and what not. Yes, we can clear a compound in a 1 minute fire mission while infantry would assault it for 2 hours. Yes, artillery has more kills in any modern war than any other type of force, BUT, there is indeed a problem. I was on the M109A6 Paladin. A big 155mm (6.1in) SPG. Many think it is a tank, for it is big, and boxy, with a big gun, but the problem is that its made out of aluminum. You know.. the soft butter of structural metals. The one that stops bullets oh wait it doesn't. And as my TC once told me when I asked him what we'd do if we had to direct fire enemy armor, he tells me this preceded by a short 'puhh' noise, "We die." A big metal box, not meant for front line combat, being engaged by something meant for front line combat. Yeah.. we die.
Now this would only happen if the front collapsed. So what does that mean? It means that while sure, I may be the most feared and destructive force on the battlefield, I still need infantry and armor to do the heavy fighting, and consolidating positions. And yet they wouldn't be able to do that without our support. Without me, they die. Without them, I die. One does not exist without the other. And we see that now with the US's FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE doctrine. From land, sea, air, and now space, the US, regardless of military branch, strives to have the best and most of all these things at the same time. And it works. It works _very_ well. Look at desert storm. The highway of death was a nightmare led by the airforce (and coalition forces too), destroying hundreds of vehicles, Marines had fires from USS Missouri and Iowa, with the firepower to send tanks into buildings with a missed shot, and the army had M1s rolling across deserts never before crossed by anyone, charging into enemy armor and not stopping. All of this for one great battle.
And it was a massive one sided victory. First Cav's museum has several trees on one side of the park. 12 exactly. Each of these is for just one soldier who sacrificed their lives during desert storm, and 1CD was a front line combat division. Pushing, fighting, pushing, fighting, on and on. 12 losses. And I'm not saying that these losses aren't tragic, but.. 12 for just one war. That's a ridiculous number. And of course 1CD was not the only division, and many many more lost their lives, but the Iraqis lost so many more.
My point is that combined arms is not the best way to fight, it's the ONLY way to fight. If you don't have both the numbers and the firepower in this day and age, you don't win. You have to play nasty or you lose. Period. So yeah, don't separate your forces. Don't stick with the arrogant, well ______ will win on its own because _____. No. You lose. Never fight alone, and never fight without as many forms of support as possible.
Thx for the read if you got this far. Hope this has been insightful.
Yeap, its the single most issue with the french, polish and soviet army in the early ww2. The reason they lost the battles.
Also, the german infantry was faster in the field and more mobile, as they practised to be on the move.
So much has to do with who has the initiative and could then plan the battles ahead. While defenders have to guess.
Just imagine the guess work around dday for germany... while the allies could consentrate and combine.
TIK, I invite you to watch this presentation by Nicholas Moran about North American armored vehicle development which clears up lots of commonly repeated misconceptions about US tanks in WW2. The 75mm cannons on the Sherman tanks were effectively destroying everything they came across including Tigers due to their concentration of fire.
I've seen it, thanks
See if you can get your hands on the first two volumes of Nigel Hamilton's biography of Montgomery - they describe quite nicely the problems Monty had with his armoured commanders, and how he had to work very hard to get combined arms teams working together properly
It was sometimes said that many British armoured units were former cavalry, and still had that mindset.
Great explanation, it explains a lot, shows the ineptitude of those at the top at the time, unfortunately this sort of thing never changes :/
"Harsh Words"...LOL...
I recently found your videos and love them.I've been reading and watching documentaries about WW2 and yours are some of the most detailed and entertaining.
Very well presented video, and very interesting fact about the 75mm L24, and its consequences for the mixed PzIII/IV formation. Thank you!
The British, Australians and allies practiced combined arms tactic in WW1 though they did that in the offensive role and not against German tanks. The British and allies had developed many effective tactics for tanks, artillery, and aircraft supporting the infantry to break through German lines. A good demonstration of combined arms tactics was against Hamel in France, 4th July 1918. Commanded by Australian General Sir John Monash. He got the Sir after that battle. He commanded Australian and US infantry with British tanks support as well as artillery and aircraft. The operation was very well planned and prepared. Including specific joint training. The battle was planned for 90 minutes but all objectives were not taken until 93 minutes. Over 1500 Germans were captured. For the first time aircraft dropped ammunition supplies for infantry. All of the latest artillery tactics were used including a rolling barrage and counter artillery methods.
When the BEF went to France in WW2 they were well equipped for mobile operation with a motorized force. But the British still failed to use effective combined arms tactics effectively. Monash was a Jewish/German colonial reserve soldier and an engineer by trade. But he did very well. Similar tactics were again used in August with devastating effects on the German army. Their Black Day. Australian and Canadian infantry with British tanks.
Even the Germans didn't think of the 88mm Flak 36 as a game-changer pre-1940. It had an armor piercing shell issued for bunker busting. However it was deemed too immobile to engage enemy armor since it takes a lot more time to set up than an anti-tank gun so the only way that would ever happen if is if the other side blindly ran into them. Eventually they realized that they could get the enemy to blindly run into them or even willingly run into them, but the Stielgranate 41 charge for the Pak 36 was deemed kind of a game changer by the German infantry since these allowed the Pak 36 to engage enemy tanks reliably within 200 meters and the Pak 36 could be moved into position a lot more easily thank a flak gun. They still used the 88 mm Flak don't get me wrong on that, but "portable" anti tank abilities were deemed valuable. The sluggishness of getting a 88 mm Flak into position never went away, it's just that early in the war the Germans found creative ways to get around that limitation and once Panzerschrecks came into play they didn't need to rely on it so heavily.
when preparing for a presentation in Dunkirk with University I came across an article that stated basically: while after WW1 other nations prepared for a war with the army they had, the Germans planned their army for the next war. Can't remember the writer off my head.
Other nations didn't plan much for a European theatre war. The british only started rearming years after Germany did, and the main focus was in defending their colonies in the east from Japan. Compare that to Germany, who had a chip on their shoulder and a thirst for vengeance with no forces spread around the world (so all consolidated in one theatre), years of preperations ahead AND experience from the spanish civil war, and it's obvious who would get the early victories.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 Germany and France started analyzing battles right after the war - Germany did some 30 or so comissions, France about half as many. France came to the conclusion that massed firepower had won battles and tried to do that with as few ppl as it could (hence 2 man tanks) as it had lost many ppl. Germany was moreintent on breakthrough and mobile warfare.
4:29 Good one! xD
Except he is wrong. The tank's job is to kill enemy tanks that it will likely come across during its exploitation mission. Very often you will have to play rock paper scissors with only rocks during a fluid battle situation and in those cases, you better have the best rock on the battlefield.
Tik is misrepresenting the situation by showing you the ideal circumstances of how a battle should operate except it rarely happens like that. It is always ideal to operate in combined arms situations as he described, but you can imagine how often you got to operate under ideal circumstances in war. What Tik does get correct is that the Soviets often were tactically clumsy with their tanks and committed them without proper support in situations when they should have known an unsupported attack was not going to work.
This has nothing to do with early mobilization. It has everything to do with the German's having an edge in understanding mobile warfare and continually refining it on enemies who were experiencing it for the first time. The Germans learned lessons on the Poles in 1939. France was their second major battle involving "blitzkrieg" while the Allies never trained or prepared for this type of war. Lessons learned there were incorporated into Barbarossa and employed against a Red Army which was totally caught off guard and was also seeing action for the first time (the winter war notwithstanding).
So yes, once the Allies and Soviets got a taste of it first hand they got better at it and in some cases beat the Germans at their own game. But rock vs rock happened a heck of a lot during WW2 and it was imperative to have a really good rock to beat other rocks when most of the army was actually scissors and paper often slow to get to the right place at the right time.
A tank's job is NOT to kill enemy tanks, rather it is to support the Infantry, who are the only ones capable of capturing and holding ground. And TIK's illustrations were meant to show you ideal situations in order to help people understand what is inherently difficult for most people (even sometimes those in the military) to understand. In North Africa the Germans operated with Combined Arms, which means that as far as possible, their tanks, infantry, and artillery OPERATED TOGETHER, whereas the British gave one mission to the infantry and artillery and a completely DIFFERENT mission to their tanks, which did not operate together. That is, and was, a recipe for disaster.
And too, the early war Germans DID have an advantage since they were using completely new doctrine, whereas the British (and the Soviets) were still using their late-war and post-war World War One doctrine, which they only changed once the war began. TOG anyone?
David Briggs Ridiculous. The US army field manual in World War 2 specifically indicates that tanks were supposed to meet enemy tanks.
Every war since ww2 has seen tanks designed and employed as a tank killer right up to Iraqi Freedom. Yet buddy on the internet knows more than the collective military minds on the planet Earth for the past 70 years. Right
Michael: You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. The PRIMARY job of a tank was not to kill other tanks, though it certainly could and did, but rather it's PRIMARY job was to try and break through enemy front line defense and wreak havoc in the enemy's rear areas. Within the United States Army during World War Two, it was the job of the Tank Destroyers to kill enemy tanks. Yes, if a tank came across an enemy tank then it did its damnedest to kill that enemy tank, but the tanks job was not to search out enemy tanks, that was left to the Tank Destroyers.
David Briggs That is wrong once again. You are straight up contradicting US Army field manual in WW2. TDs were a purely defensive formation designed to ambush enemy tank formations. Doctrine specifically forbade them from 'hunting' tanks.
You will also note that no modern army has TD style vehicles. Those are now attack helicopters. That is because the fundamental truth learned in WW2 is that the best tank killer is another tank. End of story.
“Out of Step” the memoirs of Field Marshal Lord Carver, sheds interesting light on the war in North Africa.
Those rock, paper, scissors were awesome
Then people added extra things, like pencil and lava. Got a bit complicated
Stalin
I chuse paper
German tanks were so effective because they had a LOT of very good organic infantry with a LOT of anti-tank guns. So if the enemy tried an armored counterattack, german tanks could just retreat behind an infantry screen and attack in some other place, while the enemy would be lured into anti-tank ambushes and destroyed
If you look at the to hit percentages, shots beyond 500m generally miss, making longer ranges a bit academic. Yes, there are some epic long range shots that have hit, but generally hits at ranges over 1000m are something that regularly happens with post war MBTs.
"Combined Arms Warfare aka More Guns"
Promote TIK to Marshal of the Soviet Union, died laughing
:D
Be wary of the great purge though (or is this post purge?)
The M4 Sherman medium tank had superior front armor to Panzer IIIs and most Panzer IVs. The M3 light tank was mostly used in the Pacific.
WOW! A fantastic analysis of combined arms (early) as I have seen in years!
Lots of little stuff (YES...sweat the details!!) that is so often overlooked!
Keep this type of analysis coming...I know you will but generally encouragement is welcome! ;)
It all comes down to different pre-war doctrines. The British seperated their heavy and mobile armour into large units unsupported by infantry, artillery, anti- tank units etc. The doctrine was that tanks should fight tanks and then destroy everybody else. The German doctrine was to supply their tank formations with integrated infantry (Panzer Grenadiere), artillery, anti- tank artillery ( the formidable 88 mm AA being one of the main weapons) and support units. British infantry divisions also had "I" tanks, slow but heavily armoured tanks but due to the erroneous tactics utilizing them in battle, they lost a lot of their potential. It took years unnecessary bloodshed before the British woke up to their error (Gen. Claude Auchinleck was the chief author of changing British doctrine), but by D-Day they had learned the lesson - the hard way - as usual.
I see a cheeky little video about tanks, and I'm like yeah go on then.
Hope you like it :)
this is basically a full video on why you must always accompany tanks with infantry
You really do deserve more viewers.
Most antitank tactics are based on separating tanks from infantry. If tanks attack alone, opposing infantry may skulk down in its trenches and let the tanks pass through, only to shot them from behind afterwards. Accompanying infantry prevents that.. Hence, the defender uses its artillery to force accompanying infantry to lay down, while the tanks continue to advance, and by this means separate them..
The interesting thing about this explanation is that most people assume the allies (or, at least, the western allies) suffered losses at the beginning of the war due to inferior tanks, which is said to be attributable to this idea that our tanks weren’t designed for killing other tanks. It seems the opposite is true - it was the *Germans* who prioritised using tanks for other targets.
I'd actually argue. Panzer III was better then Crusader Mk 1/2 (the ones used in the battle of El Alamein till 1943) in basically everything. And generally had the advantage in firepower at all distances. What i want to say, by comparing just the raw numbers (pretty unrealistic and i know it), and with the most common ammunition at the time (AP, APCBC were still a rare thing in 1941/42). And 2 pounder would have to get as close as 90m to even think of perforating Panzer 3/H armour while the latter could shoot at the Crusader and perforate it's armour as far as 800 meters with shorter 5cm, and 1200m with longer 5cm.
Radios were a key factor, even though they're often overlooked. The Panzer 1's and 2's had thinner armor and smaller guns than Char-B's and Matilda 2's, but each of them had at least one radio (a German commander's tank had three). With no intercoms, headphones, and throat-mikes to shut out the noise of battle, Allied tankers were isolated from each other, not to mention other Allied machines. Only a French commander's tank had a radio in it -- to talk to Headquarters. Otherwise, he was expected to use signal flags. Believe it or not.
Thanks! now I finally see what's actually important on a battlefield :) my history books tend to skip those parts
I think most history books skip those parts. Not sure why
The Germans also benefited early war from being able to recover more of
their tanks after the battle than the opposition. The combination of winning
on the operational level and pinching off the penetrations of their lines by
the Soviets helped make their mediocre production levels go a long way.
Yes, the repair facilities that the Germans used were definitely ahead of their opposition early war. I suspect this had to do with the fact they knew they had limited production, so emphasized repair.
Another reason for early German success with their armor was the fact that every German tank had a radio while only commander's tanks did among the French, Brits, and early Soviets, meaning the German units could coordinate at the level of individual tanks while the allies could not. The Western Allies, and to a slower degree the Soviets, caught on eventually and negated that advantage of the Nazis.
4:25 excellent
This is good information for everyone interested in WW2 gaming, miniatures or otherwise
Absolutely! If you're playing a WW2 game like Close Combat, consider taking some anti-tank guns instead of tanks and using different strategies. Takes a bit of getting used to, but it works, and can catch your opponent off guard.
Love your work, I learn something new every video. Thankyou for the graphics. Well done!
Another great video! I can't wait until your Stalingrad Battlestorm video!
Me too. And the Battlestorm Crusader script is 74,319 words right now too.
In the North African campaign during the Battle of Gazala, where hundreds of German and Italian tanks fought, only 18 Panzer 3 tanks were equipped with a 50mm gun, (the rest had the old 37mm gun) compared to the 167 Grant tanks that the British had with both a limited traverse 75mm and a top 37mm gun. Generally speaking, once the Allies started to receive American tanks, they outgunned the Germans in Africa.
The main advantage that the Germans had over the British tanks and anti tank guns was that the 2 pounder had no high explosive ammo. Ever. This meant that their tanks needed to score a direct hit to take out German anti-tank guns, while the German Panzer 4 tanks could engage British anti tank crews outside of their effective range, forcing them off of the field.
Back at the start of WW2, the tank was a relatively new piece of technology, and major improvements advanced it's capability during the pre-war years, changing it's role from mere infantry support into it's own combat arm.
There are two major reasons why the Germans were more effective early on. (before the Allies learned and adapted)
A) The Germans organized their Panzer divisions to be self contained mobile units which could be readily combined to form larger units, or broken into smaller formations to achieve multiple objectives at the same time. Also, every tank had its own radio, which allowed better coordination for combined arms warfare. In contrast, only the Russian command tanks at the battalion, or even regimental level had radios, which is why their attacks were rigidly timed and lacked flexibility.
B) The experience gained by the German army during the invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia was invaluable for perfecting operational doctrine before the beginning of the shooting war in Poland. So by the time the war actually started, the German tank commanders and general staff already knew what to do in the new warfare environment, while most of the senior Allied commanders were still locked into WW1 doctrine.
the quality and reliability of radio-sets decided many engagements
Excellent video as always 👍 4:25 🤣🤣🤣
Congratulations for the 50K!! Love this channel so much :D
Thanks! I'm absolutely amazed by this milestone. Can't believe it
I like the Rock Paper Scissors analogy it really cracked me up lol.
Hey Tik ! Thank you for your amazing work !
I’d like to recommend you a book who’s called The German War : a nation under arms, 1939-1945 (published in 2015) by Nicholas Stargardt. The book is about the mentality of the Germans during WW2 and try to answer different questions : how much did the Germans knew about the Holocaust ? Why did they fought to the end ? and most of all how did the Germans people supported and lived through this war.
The author used letters and personal diary of multiple persons of all class and situations, and honestly it’s one of my favorite !
Anyway thanks again for your fantastic work, your videos are the sunshine of my weeks !
Thank you for the book recommendation! I've added it to my shopping list :)
"More guns" meant the extremely active use of dive bombers and heavy artillery during the assault.
also strafing runs. the word "strafe" literally comes from the german blitz of UK and the attackers motto of "gott strafe england"
Hi TIK, excellent video and information backed by solid references. One issue that we studied at the war college that is often missed but you did allude to is the German better tactical use of their equipment which initially was a match for the Allied forces (British Commonwealth forces, Soviets and much later Americans). Viewers have to understand while Germans were very innovative with their highly coordinated "Blitzkrieg" tactics - as time went, the Allied leadership figured out how to counter it. Eventually, Blitzkrieg offensives were no longer innovative and were slowed down by deep bombardment or counterattacks by their opponents (Russian doctrine and RAF/8th Air Force tactical attacks against German logistic/supply channels). Just like Napoleon's loss at Waterloo, Napoleon had become predicable as his opponents attentively studied his previous victories. "Know who your friends are but know you enemies even better (or keep them closer)" are words of wisdom that our War College teachers wanted their senior officers to keep in mind. Great presentations, keep them coming back! Ciao, L (Veteran)
The other thing that people might not be so aware of is how bad visibility is from a tank. The commander can see out of his cupola and the driver has a slit. This isn't as great as being on the outside of a tank where you can see in all directions. Cities especially are terrible places for tanks to go as being able to see upward is very difficult and troops can drop things onto the tank. So tanks being ambushed is a lot easier than people might realise.
Absolutely, which is another reason they need infantry and artillery support
US tank commanders nowadays (quoting the Chieftain here) usually have their hatch open unless they are getting shot at. As far as I know, most of the western tanks also have a lift and swing type of hatch, meaning you can create a 360 view "cupola" while being fairly well concealed/protected from small arms fire.
T-34s are probably the epitome of "im in this armed metal box but i cant see anything"
Yeah T-34 is the best tank to emphasise the problem of being an excellent all rounder but terrible at specialised things, like going through water...
The M-1 has a pop-up hatch and also has 360 degrees of periscopes for the TC. The pop-up gave about 2 inches of space all around the hatch except the rear where the hinges were. We used the pop-up more for ventilation than any thing else.
I have been in a lot of tanks. Five years in an M-1. I have sat in a T-34, T-72, M-48, M-60, Sheridan and, weird enough, a WW1 Renault (Got to drive it. What a shoulder workout.). The M-60 had the best vision because it had that cupola that stuck way up there. The M-1 was not bad but there is some clutter on the top of the turret that gave blind spots. The Soviet tanks are impossible to see out of. Soviet tank doctrine is to fight a tank fully buttoned up. Blind and really hot. (During the Yom Kippur war the Israelis found numerous Syrian tanks with the crews passed out from heat exhaustion and heat stroke.) You also have to be like 5'4" to fit. I am 5' 10" and I could not drive the T-72 and in the TC seat my head was mashed against the closed hatch. One of the Soviet methods of suppressing tanks during WW2 was to shoot the divers viewing glass. The glass would star and the driver would have to remove it. The driver is now vulnerable to the snipers.
Great video TIK!
Thank you!
>be me
>commander of a British Cruiser Mk VI
>tank get's shot by a PaK 38, bounces
>stuka drive bombs us, misses
>infantry boi tries to take us with a AT rifle, bounces lol
>hit mine, nvrm tracks are ok keep going
>Pz III shoots, bounces
>some kraut yells "wir mögen dich nicht"
>OOF
I'm surprised you didn't break down before then
Great Video!
Explanation, Visuals, Backstory. Just great.
Thanks! Great to hear you enjoyed it!
MHV has a video of german infantry AT tactics in early war.
Also, those harsh word surely were a fatal weapon. I can't see myself enduring that.
Does he? Didn't know that. Does he come to a similar conclusion?
TIK oh, it's not about the same you said here. He literally speaks about INFANTRY only engaments vs tanks in the eastern front, such as the use of mines, grenades and molotov coctails for example.
Keep them coming tik 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I thought I new a lot and you just keep teaching me more
There's always something new to learn :) glad you enjoyed the video
I’ve never been a great book person but it’s my birthday this week and I’m going to ask my wife to buy me 1 have you got one I should buy to get me on the road to reading about WW2 more?
Such an Excellent job TIK, Why the Germans had Tactical Advantage Early in WW2(Tank and Anti-Tank Warfare) you know the subjects I really like.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors joke was quite good.
Combined arms? "That's a typical shabby Nazi trick!"
Many ineffective guns are not as useful as fewer effective guns if deployed correctly . The germans learned this lesson as well on the eastern front when they encountered the T34 ! The British possessed better tanks than the Germans early in the war , its was superior tactics that gave the germans an edge . Rommel learned this when he was nearly defeated by British tank formations in France and had to organize an ad hoc defense with 88s . Its was a few effective guns and tactical flexibility that saved him from defeat in this action . A lesson he used to great advantage in Africa later .
France and Britain started remarming and mobilising in the mid 1930s, not the late 1930s. It's particularly evident in things like the specification that led to the Lancaster, P. 13/36. The Allies hadn't completed it as they misjudged how long they had to do so by a year. In that scenario, Britain would have been fully armed with the 6lber and about to start taking deliveries of the 17lber the following year.
From my perspective, I always get the impression that the British were experiencing the downsides of having been the first to deploy tanks in their last major war. Their experience with tanks was thus skewed by their experience of deploying them as a brand new exploit against an unprepared enemy that had not yet had chance to study, analyze and learn lessons from their prior engagements, of course, their units were not well prepared to counter them they had never seen such a thing. Give their best military experts, engineers etc a couple of decades to analyze all the reports from the prior engagements and devise solutions to the problems and they will be better prepared that much should have been obvious though it's fair to say that this doesn't help to understand how they would have prepared but even so no excuse for the British seeming to nievely assume they would continue to steamroll everything. There are after all ways to learn how the enemy is responding to the intel the prior engagements have given them and failing that setting up teams of your own experts and giving them access to the information the Germans would have had and saying "Give me your best solutions to counter this problem" is a good way to get some idea how engineers and military strategists would think and thus what they would recommend with a given set of facts. Do this with different groups and you will tend to get a good idea as engineers etc are trained to look at problems from a similar place so similar solutions would crop up a lot usually this is not guaranteed of course and the enemy coming up with a black swan solution is possible but btrainstorming the problem from the enemy perspective is a very useful exercise.
Good point. The Germans had the harsh experience of being on the losing side of a battle with enemy tanks over and over again, in WW1. They were forced to learn what it takes to at least lose more slowly until the tanks might wander into a town or forest where they could be killed. And when those opportunity arose, they had to know what to do to harshly punish the enemy's error.
The British experience in the late war would be that the best equipped divisions were usually able to make reliable progress and that correlated with the numbers of tanks in battle. The errors that got tanks destroyed could be brushed aside as anomalies in a war that was going pretty well, at least for the properly equipped units.
In spite of the arms race, there is one interesting thing that illustrates how having the right equipment can be invalidated by having the wrong mindset, and how training and experience trump over superior equipment.
The Germans and Italians have their 88 and 90 mm AA guns, respectively. Dangerous field pieces capable of taking tanks at long range. In the entire year of 1941, Rommel only had 24 FlaK 36 guns at his disposal; meanwhile, the Commonwealth forces had over 75 QF 3.7 inch AA guns. Yet the British never got to adapt them and use them in the frontlines. Meanwhile, I./Flak-Regiment 18 and I./Flak-Regiment 33 had reported the destruction of 264 tanks and 42 aircraft.
Excellent video & discussion! I'd like to extend the conversation by making a few additional points, which I am sure the author of the video & many who watched it already know, but may be news to some out there.
IMHO, the two other issues that I believe were crucial to the early tactical success of the Panzers were 1. their more ergonomic allocation of responsibilities for their tank crews, and 2. their military's more sophisticated communications systems. The Panzer III and IVs employed a 5-man crew, which had a three-man turret, and that meant that their tank commander didn't have to do double-duty as a gunner. This had to have made a huge difference during the thick of battle, and since some of the western Allies' tanks had just two-man turrets, the Germans had an advantage, whether they were facing 'soft targets' ( infantry/anti-tank guns/artillery) and/or tanks. Furthermore, having a five-man crew meant that they had a trained radio operator who could also devote his attention to suppressing infantry with the Germans' excellent MG34 machine gun.
Not only did the radio-operator provide useful firepower, but he provided an essential communications link with other armour within their tank platoon/company. This made Panzer units much more flexible & faster in response to an evolving battle than the Allied units, and it enabled them to exploit successes against enemy defences by relaying information regarding where the enemy's weak points were situated. Contrast this with the situation for the Soviets. Not only did they lack an intercom system to communicate with fellow crew members over the noise of battle, but they had no way to share important information or commands with the rest of the tanks, except by asking the poor commander to sticking his head & torso out the hatch to wave a bunch of signal flags (which may or may not have been easily seen through the dust & smoke enveloping the battle).
Furthermore, the Germans, with their crews well-trained in combined-arms warfare, were equipped to communicate with mobile infantry, artillery, and the airforce. From what I have read, it was not out of the ordinary for the Panzer divisions to have their butts saved by well-directed instructions to the Stuka squadrons, which were able to neutralize dangerous Allied or Soviet artillery/anti-tank guns that were well-protected in prepared defensive positions (especially during the first half of the war). The Stukas were needed in this way quite often, because much of the German artillery was out-ranged by Allied & Soviet artillery & early-on, had difficulty with the thicker-armoured French tanks.
Of course, the Allies & Soviets did catch-up to the Germans in both crew ergonomics & communications systems, and from that point on, the Germans no longer held the upper-hand in these tactically-important areas.
Finally, one other issue that seriously restricted the ability of the Germans to employ the proper tactics was that the famed 88mm piece was, in a way, too good & too versatile. It was an excellent example of field artillery and it had a high rate of fire, it was a highly accurate & destructive anti-tank weapon with an impressive range, and it was a great anti-aircraft gun. Yes, the Allies & Soviets had similarly capable weapons, but early-on in the war, they were primarily used as artillery pieces or in anti-aircraft units. For the Germans, there was a high demand for the '88 from all areas of the military, so the output of the factories did not always go to the anti-tank units. Then, to make matters worse, when the air war over Europe & Russia turned in favour of the Allies & Soviets, the Germans were forced to prioritize allocation of 88's to anti-aircraft batteries in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and so on to protect German manufacturing, plus more to units on the Eastern Front to take on the Soviets' dangerous ground-attack planes. Consequently, even with an impressive increase in production (thanks to Albert Speer's influence), there were never an adequate number of '88s in the anti-tank units to our-range & outnumber the large number of Allied tanks attacking/out-flanking the German lines, or the masses of Soviet tanks charging head-on into tired German defenses.
regards,
Interesting side note, the Americans also realized early on, as in before the war even started, that tank vs. tank was not the best tactical way to go, and it explains a lot about the design of the Sherman (although they later realized that yes, having a tank be ABLE to take out other tanks effectively was beneficial). The problem there, I think, was that the Americans had no experience and very little idea of how to effectively create anti-tank teams, and they were going up against experienced German units.
This rock/paper/scissors joke was the best one so far this year!
Thr new graphics kinda remind me of Military History Visualized style
Good job, it looks great and makes it so much enjoyable to watch!!
Haha I know what you mean. It's only because this was the best way to explain the concepts. Couldn't have done it if I was in the way
Hey TIK, I know this had been done by many but I would like to see a full documentary about WW2 from you. Maybe, I will learn something new that I didn't know. However, if this is too much then I wouldn't force you to do it.
Congrats to 50K subs!Keep up the good work :)
Thank you Isuf! It's truly unbelievable. Gained more than 10k subs in the past month
One of your best, thanks
Great work TIK, Keep it up man!
I cant belive just a couple years ago your channel was just short of 1000 subscribers and it was based primarily on the Close combat series.
I am very glad to see it grow like it already has, I did tell you it would happen!
Yoyoman out o7
Cheers Yoyoman! I know what you mean, it's insane. Especially since I've gained more than 10k in less than a month. Casey Neistat said in his video the other day that getting to 1,000 is harder than 10,000. I'd very much agree with him on that one ua-cam.com/video/zY7_XJ1WUqk/v-deo.html
Erudite, lucid and compelling as always. Great one TIK
you became my favorite youtuber now, keep up the good job :D
That's really good to hear :) hope I can maintain that title!
Have you read Norman Ohler's book 'Blitzed'? It gives a whole new perspective to the western front and why the Germans seemed invincible.....
LOVE your vídeos! Greetings from argentina
Cheers Leandro! Glad you're enjoying them :)
Germans started gearing toward earlier than Allies(but later than Italians), hovewer they had no trained reserves, everybody was on active duty, that's why Germans faced severe manpower shortages during entire war. They operated on very thin margin of error. In contrary to British or Soviets, losing a single Army for them was unrepailable loss. And that's crucial but often omited aspect of war.
you have omitted another major factor which is ; the Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce and was trained to provide close tactical support with fighters and bombers. hence the Stukas were very effective in the early war as 1) the germans could readily achieve air superiority as in france, norway, the balkans and in early barbarossa which then 2) gave their Stukas an almost free rein over the battlefields. When they lost the air superiority then the germans had to adapt as in north africa and russia even as early as the battle of britain the RAF defence chased the stukas from he air.
Yes, the Luftwaffe was hugely built up before the war and absorbed vast amounts of resources and men. It was as you point out, crucial. The air losses sustained in 1941/2 were another reason for the loss of their ability to win big and smash open entire fronts.
"tanks can beat everything"
A perception unfortunately that still persists until now
That is the worst part, back then especially for the British that sort of mindset while flawed is somewhat understandable. I do get a sense that the British were learning the hard way the dangers that come with being the first to deploy something new, their experience was heavily biased by the resulting engagements against a completely unprepared force. Sure it was unforgivable that they seemingly failed to consider that the enemy would not have done something with the intel gained from those engagements with a whole 2 decades to play with but still the British we're used to putting their new toys up against a nieve opponent not one that had learned to counter them. Turns out being the first to invent something can totally bite you in the ass if you are not careful of the dangers that come with it happens to be a reality for warfare as much as it is for business and everyday life too heh.
The presentation in this video matches what Churchill tells us in His History of WWII
The British actually understood combined arms war and used it effectively during WW1 even with the highly unreliable WW1 tanks. The Battle for Hamel on the 4th July 1918 where Australian and US infantry demonstrated how a combined arms force could break German defenses. Though this was not a breakthrough battle, the town was captured in 93 minutes with a large number of German prisoners. This was only a limited advance that did not outrange its artillery support. The WW1 artillery was ineffective in crossing no man's land. But the objectives were within of artillery to stop German counter-attacks. This victory was done with tanks, artillery, infantry and aircraft. It also involved the confusion of the Germans as well with deceptive tactics. And the tanks could mostly gain the objectives before breaking down. The battle was commanded by the Australian General Monash who coordinated the thorough planning. Monash was an engineer, reservist, Jew, colonial, and of German descent and speaker. Despite these characteristics, he was still knighted by the King and decorated by the French president for his success.
Most of the tactics had been used before but in this attack many tactics were coordinated and planned effectively. The final objectives were to be taken in 90 minutes. But it took 93 minutes to gain all of the objectives. Similar tactics were used again at the Battle of Al Elaemaen. Other battles also used effective tactics. But the lessons were mainly ignored in early WW2.
This stuff is all true. I have played a bunch of Battlefield, and while it is just a video game and not necessarily historical or scientific evidence, the same general principles apply. Tanks get owned by themselves, but are almost unstoppable with dedicated infantry support.