British Armour in Normandy - July and August 1944 - With John Buckley
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- British Armour in Normandy - July and August 1944
With John Buckley
Part of Armoured Actions Week on WW2TV
• Armoured Actions Week
If you liked this video please consider leaving us a thank you donation. To the right of the up and down thumbs and share button is the heart shaped Thanks button - it helps us to keep on producing content.
John Buckley is Professor of Military History at the University of Wolverhampton. He teaches and publishes on twentieth-century military history and strategic studies, especially on air power and the final year of World War II.
In this show John will talk about the development of 21st Army group's armoured forces in the aftermath of Operation Goodwood through to Totalize. What was going wrong? Why were armoured forces struggling to impose themselves? What were the lessons learned by late July 44? How did the armoured arm develop and adapt in August?
John's last WW2TV appearance talking about his book - Can you defeat the Nazis?
• British Armour in Norm...
Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe by John Buckley
USA uk.bookshop.or...
USA bookshop.org/a...
You can become a UA-cam Member of WW2TV and support us here / @ww2tv
You can become a Patron here / ww2tv
Please click subscribe for updates
Social Media links -
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
WW2TV Bookshop - where you can purchase copies of books featured in my UA-cam shows. Any book listed here comes with the personal recommendation of Paul Woodadge, the host of WW2TV. For full disclosure, if you do buy a book through a link from this page WW2TV will earn a commission.
UK - uk.bookshop.or...
USA - bookshop.org/s...
Once again Woody, you’ve opened doors for me to learn about the British and Canadian exploits of WWII ETO and others AO’s. I’ve been forever focused on the American efforts in all theaters that I completely glossed over how truly significant and brave your countrymen and women were to winning the war. The Canadians and all the other colonial troops as well. Your shows and your guests - I thirst for more. 👍🏻👍🏻
It gets harder with each show to come up with superlatives that will grab a potential viewers attention as to why they should watch, but Professor Buckley knocks it out of the park today! Everybody has read overviews of Normandy and thinks they know everything they need to know and that is not the case, deep analysis of the various operations is what you need to understand it. Sure it ain't sexy like tanks and planes and that stuff, but that's just a little part of World War II. This show was college seminar level class and another reason why WW2TV is a must watch channel. Thank you Professor Buckley and Paul for a fantastic presentation.
I knew it would be good. John possesses that rare gift of being to take quite complicated ideas and make them simple to understand. Plus he's just a lovely chap
Absolutely Paul, you guys are on my bucket list of folks I'd like to meet. O'Keefe as well. You guys looked like you had fun.
This comment pretty much sums up where I am with this channel. Great stuff.
Shows like this one are worthy of a much bigger audience as they educate even when folks have a fair degree of knowledge (or preconceptions!) . Great show guys and keep them coming Woody.
My opinion on Montgomery as a commander changed when I started reading the recollections of US Army commanders below the rank of divisional commander. The vast majority of regimental and battalion commanders who interacted with him thought Monty was a professional who knew his job and the company commanders and soldiers who happened to be inspected by Monty found him very engaging and an extremely charismatic commander who was concerned about their thoughts and welfare. I think the American and British High Command were probably the most critical element to Montgomery's generalship, not the men at the sharp end of the stick.
Reading a Carlo d'Este book gave a great appreciation that Monty understood how little manpower reserves Britain had, which had to be split between Europe and Far East to defend an Empire, as well as furnish RAF and a global Navy.
So, his doctrines were always governed by making as much use of machinery - preferably artillery or airpower, with the tank HE shell - before putting his troops in.
However, he also had seen and noted what had happened to the Americans in North Africa, and so decided (in his capacity as overall i/c of the D Day landings) to make the British forces face the German forces coming from both more northern Europe and nearer Paris such that these forces had to get past him first to get at the Americans.
He got a lot of stick from the press and then the politicians safe back in the UK, which might have affected him, but his troops (incl my Dad, MO, 2nd Batttalion Royal Scots Guards) loved him, and he managed to win the battle for Normandy ahead of schedule, but by then, the sheer number of US troops in France made it imperative that Eisenhower be given overall command of the forces in Europe, so got the glory for that, which fed the fires back in the UK.
Apparently Monty and Simpson got on well Hodges not so much
@@andrewthegraciouslordrober327 You will not make friends Many Americans on here have no idea who he was.
@@jacktattis That'll be "friends" on a UA-cam channel, then. Gosh, I'm mortified. How will I ever run a social life?
@@andrewthegraciouslordrober327 I'll meet you for a pint if you should ever find yourself in Northeast Pennsylvania. Sadly it'll be a US Pint not an Imperial Pint but not all of us are the sort of brash idiot who speaks before thinking.
Wonderful show today. I'm fortunate to be part of such a dynamic, informed, and inquisitive community that is keenly interested in thinking and learning more about WW2. Thanks Woody and Dr. Buckley.
This show is brilliant. I'm going to rewatch it and follow John. I really do hope you have him back. he does a great job of cutting through the chaff and getting to the heart of the matter. And speaks to how the guys at the front were impromizing and adapting. I like that he doesn't focus on the personalities of the generals. We're all familiar with situations where the bosses have some grand scheme of things but it is either a bit simple & ignores the facts on the ground, so we have to try our best to make it work out on our own somehow. And that's what I, at least, take from what he's saying.
After this I feel I have a Much better understanding of the situation British, Canadian and Polish tankers and infantry were in at the time. That's a great insight. Makes me admire them even more. (And I'm an American so it'd be easy enough to not give them all the respect they earned.)
One of, if not my favorite episode or WW2 history presentation so far.
John is my lecturer at uni and are going to Normandy in March with him so watching all Normandy WW2TV lectures on it!!!
John is a superstar
He’s fantastic! His lectures are amazing, nobody ever wants them to end!
John was my lecturer at Wolves 2003-2006 and we very much enjoyed the Normandy trip! He gave my dissertation a C+
Great presentation as always. I read some time ago in an analysis of British tank losses at Goodwood were not as high as most estimates. The Germans claimed to have destroyed 500+ tanks during the battle. According to British End of Day Reports 323 tanks were missing, however of those all but 131 write-offs were repairable and returned to service. German losses admitted were 107 write-offs.
German kill claims cannot be trusted in any theater of operations. Often when you read of e.g. German units destroyed dozens of enemy tanks in such-and-such location, the opposing force's records show no losses at all, or no armored unit present at that time and place.
While I don't question the Germans general tactical superiority, we cannot take their kill claims seriously.
@@executivedirector7467 German anti-tank guns were by far the biggest tank killer, and they outnumbered tanks over 3/1. The way tanks are reported lost is also misleading. The British used the End of Day Report (EoD) which listed all tanks missing from their unit. They could be lost, out of fuel, broken down, damaged or destroyed. Only after later inspection were tanks written off. So if the EoD says 300 tanks missing, on average only about 30% turn out to be write-offs. In contrast the Germans only reported a confirmed total write-off and in the heat of battle many write-offs went unrecorded. As I mentioned Goodwood saw 131 British tanks Destroyed compared to 107 German. Figures almost never used in publications which conclude all EoD figures are write-off!
@@billballbuster7186 That may all be true.
The other thing to remember here is that tank losses or any other type of losses, even if temporary or minor (e.g. a tank with its track blown off and easily repaired) still deprive the friendly unit of that combat power till they are repaired.
I learn more of the nitty gritty every day from listening to presentations on this channel.
Thanks 👍
Brilliant episode, thank you.
First of all I felt an immediate affinity with John when he described himself as a wargamer in his "misspent youth." I am a wargamer of old as well, and I found his charts of the various armored formations of the British Army in 1944 brought to mind one of my favorite Avalon Hill games called "Panzer Leader" as the rulebook had a section describing the evolution of Allied Armored formations. This was an informative lecture well presented in which I learned something about Operation Bluecoat of which I knew little. I never appreciated how important it was in regards to the success of Cobra. Thanks for such a brilliant explanation.
Same here, haven't heard about that game in forever, it was my very first book case game about 78.
Panzer Leader a great game. Played that and its eastern front counterpart Panzerblitz often in the 1970s. Avalon Hill had some great games. Great way to learn a lot about military history and military strategy & tactics. Those two (Panzer Leader and Panzerblitz) probably my favorite AH games.
Great preamble chat. I think it captured the broader self-indulgent view of Britain as somehow being at a remove from modernity with this producing a distorted popular understanding of the past replete with a fixation on eccentric individuals, pluck, gentleman amateurs etc. In tank chat this would compare/contrast say Hobart's funnies with the efficiency of say the (over-engineered show pony that is the) Tiger tank. Instead the reality is that Britain was very much a part of modernity. David Edgerton's recent work is a useful corrective here. And another cracking vid. Cheers!
Once again brilliant presentation have watched it twice, excellent.
If you want to understand British Armored operations in Normandy, you have to watch this masterful presentation by John Buckley. He provides explanations of the doctrine and differences between Sherman and Churchill equipped units and how they operated with infantry. Then gives a great explanation of the performance of German vs Allied equipment and how the weapons impacted the way the tanks fought in Normandy. You will not be disappointed. WW2TV delivers once again the best historians and content to the WW2 afflicted.
The sidebar was chugging along in this episode, I will watch again to fully absorb John's views.
Wonderful and insightful presentation. Thank you. Hope to see more of John on WW2TV
I hope so too! He's been on three times, but I expect he will be back before too long
In terms of the Sherman survivability and design features/reasons "The Chieftan" has done several excellent presentations (available on you-tube) on the issue which I would highly recommend for further context.
Yes. Also, Stephen Zaloga wrote much about the Sherman, notably with his book entitled "Armored Thunderbolt: The US Army Sherman in World War II" ... the fact is things didn't stay static with the Sherman - improvements were instituted. And the later versions, "the Easy 8's" with HVAP tungsten shells actually acquitted themselves decently in Korea even, against T-34s.
Just the changes came incrementally, and the army didn't appear willing to make a big jump in a new investment later in the war with he kind of tank that the Pershing represented. (Or, they were looking at alternatives, but weren't ready to commit very quickly)
@@michaeldunne338 Agreed and I have the book you mentioned, and yes it is a great resource. Many people also fail to appreciate the Allies had to ship every piece of equipment over seas/oceans which placed hard limits on tonnage that could be handled without considerable re-tooling etc. As usual the story is more complex than simple league tables of armour/penetration/who had the bigger tank reflect.
@@michaeldunne338The thing is that nothing happens in a vacuum.
The US heavy tank was supposed to be the M6.
Which was rightly shelved as none too good.
After that the US army went to devise the Medium tank in a better fashion than the M4.
That led to the t20 to t23 programs.
A usable tank only evolved from that somewhere half to three quarters into 1943.
But that wasnt a real capability improvement over the M4.
Only after did the notion to base a heavier tank on the t23 compenents start to devellop.
Now even the Improved M26 was an unreliable beast in Korea....to base your entire invasion on an unproven tank would have been ludicrous in 1943.
And at what cost. M26s wouldve cut tank transport capacity by roughly 50 to 70%.
And that wouldve led to much greater PBI casualties. Tank availability during an attack was the greatest single predictor of casualties. 1 tank for a company level infantry attack nearly halves total casualties. 2 and its less than a quarter. More than 2 and casualties and fatalities are nearly eliminated.
Really enjoyed the presentation, thank you.
I allways respect people who can change their mind presented with new facts.
Superb presentation! Really enjoyed it.
A butcher from Southend told me of the day when as tank commander in N.Africa , He was last in a line of six , emerging from dunes he saw the five ahead of him get knocked out , and quickly reversed back behind cover . He expressed it in a jovial way , no sadness . Thats just what happened and I was lucky.
Awesome as always, John and Woody. This presentation feels very much like a missing link.
Fantastic episode.
hope you join us on the military history quiz, Phil!
@@loreleikomm5802 Just stumped on the last question for the moment
@@philbosworth3789 drats, that Shane...there's always one or two that hang me up! Seriously, the research is fun and I'm learning so much from the weekly quiz
Amazing presentation! And great t-shirt from John, would love one myself!
Thank you John / Paul for a brilliant and enlightening show and discussion. The more I watch WW2TV programmes the more I realise there is still so much to learn and how much we need People like John Buckley to continue to research and publish. Paul - your comment about the "Top Trumps" mentality is really valid, the Allies may not have had the "Best" tanks, but it is also about the planning, logistics, intelligence, reconnaissance, tactical and situational appreciation, as well as utilising combined arms to the best effect. If you leave assets (in this case tanks) unsupported and /or unprotected they are going to get beaten up to hell and gone!! The allied forces in Normandy are learning these lessons but sometimes in a very costly way. Also if senior commanders lose sight of what they are really trying to achieve and ego / personal aggrandisement take over then problems will surely follow. There is a fine line to walk about taking a calculated risk to exploit a situation and ploughing on on with an operation which is going horribly wrong.
So glad I took out membership of this channel and hope a lot more people do so!! Keep up the sterling work Paul👍👍👍
Thanks Steve, John is very very good at what he does
They did have the best tanks. The M4 Sherman is better than the PZ4 and Stug 3. The M4 Sherman 76 mm gun could destroy a tiger tank at 1000 meters. The Churchill was invulnerable vs the panther and tiger gun
@@markcorrigan3930 As we always say, best is an almost pointless term. So many variables - terain, range, training, speed, weather, defence or atttack etc
Excellent show, it’s really brilliant listening to this conversation especially after just finishing the book brothers in arms.
Thank you Alex
It's said the concentration of British armor in Normandy was greatest than anywhere in a campaign. Good vid
Another superb show - fascinating discussion. Thanks John and Woody
This part of the war must have been bloody awful....full on intensive fighting, very nearly 24/7? Grandad landed in Normandy on D+6 (June 12th) and in all his years that I had with him, he never, ever spoke about Normandy! He mentioned about landing in Normandy and then the next chapter is moving into Germany itself.
Grandad was REME, an under estimated role in keeping things moving and now, in my fifties, having a better appreciation of what REME’s role is and was, I’m starting to appreciate the horrors of the “Battlefield Triage” of knocked out AFV’s....made even worse by hot weather....😢
Thoroughly enjoyed this well run presentation.....thanks to both of you.
Normandy was a very high intensity campaign, however, it was exceptionally rare for any British armor unit to operate at night so they were not in combat 24/7.
Other armies (Germans, soviets, US, Canadians) did routinely operate at night by 1944 however.
@@executivedirector7467 But armoured units like the 7th, 11th and the Guards were always in the thick of the fighting though.
Thank you both for an interesting overview of the British and Canadian armour in Normandy.the description of using infantry as tank riders in July 44 by the British Army is a revelation .
Wonderful show on a very interesting subject, but one thing that comes to mind is that on June 6th the Wehrmacht had at that time in the West a veteran and highly educated in war cadre of Panzer officers, whereas the British had a much more grab bag of veteran units and leaders and green units and leaders and the Americans even more green than their allies. By the battle of the Falaise Gap the situation was completely reversed whereas the Allies were much more seasoned, and their tactical doctrine more worked out and the quality of the German Panzer units and leadership had been seriously degraded by that time. Doctrine from the school of hard knocks and the tank commanders with experience will always trump the newest wonder weapons.
🌟 Thanks Paul and John. Lovely stuff. Random comments to follow.
Random 1: was the later OR John mentioned on tank losses by David Rowland? I have one of his reports I can share and I've got similar data from Veritable.
Random 2: There's a good strand on tank riding in the inf/armr cooperation file (one of the WO 205s I think) that shows the diversity of approach - all based on the experience John describes. In early 1945 Gds Armd & 43 Div / 8 Armd were tank riding until first contact but other Divs were only doing it as an admin move well out of contact.
Random 3: UA-cam rules state that stiring martial music and sexy gothic script must be used whenever Meyer & Wittmann are mentioned.
Random 4: I'm ambidextrous on the Simonds debate but he insisted on an extra Cdn Div in 30 Corps for Veritable D-day. No operational need and it probably screwed things up but he didn't want Cdns to miss the party. 🤏
Random 3: "British Armour in Germany" would be a great book for John to do. Happy to donate all the juice from Veritable. 🖖
Excellent
Thanks
Love it would love to hear more on the forgotten battle of Overloon.
What a great show! Great guest! Thank you, John. A wealth of information presented in an engaging manner. Love this channel.
Glad you enjoyed it! Yes my chats with John are always fun
Dr John Buckley gave the lectures on the European Strategic Bombing Campaign in the mid 90s at Wolverhampton.
His lectures were always v good and interesting and even now I still enjoy learning about avaition in and post WW2 👍
I’ve got those two books by John - great stuff!
Jolly good, thank you both.
WW2TV, you should do a show about Operation Bluecoat. That sounds very interesting. Combined forces that work well together. So early in the battle for Europe.
I will be doing more on Bluecoat next year for the 80th
As ever JB, top job. Relaxed manner with a wealth of knowledge, totally engaging. JB's book "Monty's Men: The British Army & the Liberation of Europe" gives a wealth of information, either as a precede or follow up to the show - highly recommended.
Airfix kits and Avalon Hill wargames - that was me in the 1980s too. Definitely leaves the impression “it’s all about whose tank is technically the best”.
Fascinating and invaluable as usual. This I don’t think can be calibrated but my perception of minefields is also to channel assaults to prepared defenses and so they contribute to the tank and artillery percentages indirectly. Thank you as ever for choice of topic and guest
Super, grateful to you both
Book on order, found a soft cover version online for 50€, not cheap, but sill. Hard backs go for 300€ plus.
Absolutely marvelous, I'm lucky to have stumbled into this channel
Welcome aboard, you have a lot of content to trawl through
In Febuary 1941 British Armour working in conjuction with Australian Infantry supported by the RAF advanced over 800km taking over 133,000 Axis prisoners, 400 tanks and 1,292 artillery pieces in Operation Compass.
Dont tell the US they will not believe you. In fact the British Advanced many miles more than their US counterparts almost every where.
Against Italy.
@@nickdanger3802 No nick in Libya
@@nickdanger3802 I see where you are coming from It was the Italians at the Marieth line that gave you a hiding.
@@jacktattis The Battle of the Mareth Line or the Battle of Mareth was an attack in the Second World War by the British Eighth Army (led by General Bernard Montgomery) in Tunisia, against the Mareth Line held by the Italo-German 1st Army (led by General Giovanni Messe). It was the first big operation by the Eighth Army since the Second Battle of El Alamein 4+1⁄2 months previously. On 19 March 1943, Operation Pugilist, the first British attack, established a bridgehead but a break-out attempt was defeated by Axis counter-attacks. Pugilist established an alternative route of attack and Operation Supercharge II, an outflanking manoeuvre via the Tebaga Gap was planned. Montgomery reinforced the flanking attack, which from 26 to 31 March, forced the 1st Army to retreat to Wadi Akarit, another 40 mi (64 km) back in Tunisia.
Great show John's book on Market Garden sounds great!
A superb talk. The presenter knows their stuff.
Well of course, it's John Buckley
@@WW2TV I am tempted to say, of course, like me he is a Lancaster graduate & pg :) (I never met him). Seriously, he has the casually confident overview of his subject that is a defining feature of a true expert.
He is the equivalent of a Jedi Master!
Another excellent and thoughtful presentation. Well done!
Thank you! Cheers!
Radio contact or the lack of between the armour and infantry is never discussed,radios were pretty rudimental and easily went off set were fragile...my father who was a radio engineer in the RAF, actually helped correct tank radio problems!!! He landed DDay +3
Really enjoyed Prof Buckley presentation. He broke down the elements of doctrine into easy to understand parts. I hope this show puts to bed the myth the British were one-dimensional thinkers in Normandy. If you're losing men & equipment constantly, you'll either adapt and win or go out of business.
Definitely enjoyed his discussion of Op Bluecoat (agree it's forgotten in history) and it's effects on frustrating the German response to the Cobra breakout. Putting all resources into Totalize instead of Bluecoat as Terry Copp argued - Only if the Allies could predict Hitler was going to go "all in" with Luttich, then they could've committed all resources to Totalize. In the end, they destroyed the 7th army so it worked out well in the grand scheme of things.
I would like to see John back on the show.
Really very impressed by General Dempsey!
As I learned about British manpower shortages, I refigured all my opinions of the British effort.
Really great presentation! Shame i was so late to the party!
Great to see the British perspective at and around Cobra. And another reminder that things aren't as strait forward as you think they are. There are a lot of moving parts.
Exactly. Keeping the German forces pinned against whatever they were facing, such that they could not risk reinforcing another area, for fear of their front being the bit that was broken through, was key.
As he pretty much knew where the defences were, and had superior air and land bombardment capability, Monty held a lot of good cards.
Excellent episode. I particularly enjoy the efforts to treat these events from a minimally biased viewpoint. History is a social science and as such always subject to the historians’ filters but John Buckley is very effective at investigating and reaching data driven, nuanced and relatively unbiased conclusions.
Nice to get into the nitty gritty
@WW2TV there was a period of consolidation. The Cherbourg opperation itself took 6 days. You don't count Goodwood from June 6, do you?
(for some reason I can't reply to replies 😒)
Cherbourg was the no 1 objective in the US Sector. St Lo was another example of Bradley's slowness. In fact his inability to capture St Lo was responsible for him having to cancel the planned start of COBRA on July 19. GOODWOOD and COBRA were supposed to be launched at the same time but Bradley got stalled at St Lo and had to postpone his attack leaving Monty to do it all on his own. When the rain came that was used as an excuse to explain why Bradley was 'too slow' but Bradley had already informed Monty he was not going to be able to launch his half of the offensive before July 18. The rain played no part in Bradley's failure.
excellent talk he knows his subject
Yep, John is the master
My grandfather was in the Coldstream guards 21st army group juno beach
I'm sure the Australians developed combined arms support in WW1 and used it to great effect at the Battle for Tobruk . The 25Pounders quite often took out the German and Allied Armour by hitting them on top of the tank and likely to detrack them otherwise . Which could be destroyed with Night patrols. I am sure the British and Allies heard about this from 1st Battle off Alamein onwards.
I am sure they did not. The combined operations was being done by all Allied units as the war developed. It was not specific to any country.
Love you guys though! ♥️🙂
Two things to bear in mind about the above. Firstly at very least two thirds of the German armoured Panzers, were facing the British and Canadians, in Normandy. Secondly 7th Armoured Division, the famous 'desert rats' had been fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa, Sicily and the Italian mainland since 1941, although only a relative handful of original veterans survived with the division by 1944, but they had seen a lot and probably too much action, including many of their mates being maimed and killed by July/August 1944. British tanks, from the world beating Centurion of 1945, were all about a big gun and good armour, because they really had not had that in most of WWII.
The 7th AD was really a poor performer in Normandy though. It's hard to avoid that conclusion. The reasons may be totally justified in terms of exhausted personnel but, the record is pretty clear.
@@executivedirector7467 I imagine it's because they were a pretty exhausted unit by the time they got to France.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Or because their commanders were truly incompetent
@@executivedirector7467 Yes that is also the case, it should be noted that Monty was dissatisfied with the command and organisation of the Goodwood, Perch & surrounding battles, Dempsey (British 2nd Army) was even more scathing.
Following this unimpressive performance both Bucknall (XXX Corps) and Erskine (7th Armoured) were sacked.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Indeed. So was 'Looney' Hinde, the brigade commander. So pretty much the entire surviving chain of command for V-B.
Whow! The presenter actually had a decent microphone.
Is that not normally the case in your opinion?
As for the Typhoons, Mustangs, and Thunderbolts and why they did so well in Normandy. It's quite easy to fire rockets and drop bombs, claim kills on tanks, and go home. The pilots don't have to deal with the immediate consequences of missing targets. In tanks on the other hand if you miss the target can return fire and immediately disabuse you of the notion that you got the kill. This is not to denigrate the pilots, they really did think they killed all the tanks they claimed, but their performance records in Air to Ground attacks are in most documents based on the claims of pilots. After the war they did a survey to try to confirm what the pilots actually killed. They did excellent work against soft targets. Tanks they got about 1 for every 20 they claimed.
The rockets on the Typhoon were not very accurate. It took a very skillful pilot to both aim accurately, and then allow for all the recoil and other effects of these 60 lb rockets going off. "Against some of Germany's heavier tanks, the rockets needed to hit the thin-walled engine compartment or the tracks to have any chance of destroying or disabling the tank. Analysis of destroyed tanks after the Normandy battle showed a hit-rate for the air-fired rockets of only 4%.[37] In Operation Goodwood (18-21 July), the 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed 257 tanks destroyed.[nb 9] A total of 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using rocket projectiles.[38] Once the area was secured, the British "Operational Research Section 2" analysts could confirm only ten out of the 456 knocked out German AFVs found in the area were attributable to Typhoons using rocket projectiles.[38][39]
I'm surprised nobody said Alexander when you asked who could have replaced Monty. I would have if I had been able to watch this show live.
Alexander replacing Monty - the most logical choice since Slim was Burma bound and about to turn Defeat into Victory (hence his memoirs).
Pros of Alexander: great diplomacy, liked & respected by his Allies. Loved by his troops. Had Churchills approval.
Cons: some felt he lacked grip (allowed Sicily to develop into a Patton vs Monty runoff) and in the words of Brooke "Alex was a big man who thought very small) so perhaps not as good on the strategic level. Then again, since WW2 we've tended to measure all British generals in the ETO to Brooke as Americans will compare their generals to Marshall regards strategic thinking.
Would Dempsey have even considered taking the position if offered - good question.
Monty was still the hero of El Alamein & trading off that reputation so like Arthur Harris (who should've been relieved for obstructing the pre-Overlord bombardment campaign), as long as he held Churchills favour, dismissal wasn't really an option. The nearest Monty will come to censure is the Winston smackdown in the Commons after the Zonhoven Conference faux pas.
@@marks_sparks1 For political and other reasons I think it would have had to be an outsider to 21st Army Group which leaves out Dempsey. I don't see Slim as a plausible option as he entirely lacked experience in the European war having been a Middle East and Far East general in the war up to that time, that and the fact that he was the ideal commander for British 14th Army.
Monty's reputation as the supreme military professional was well deserved.
I am always struck by thr Monty haters that thry completely ignore the views of Brooke. He was the supreme military strategist on the eestern side. His views on Monty were based on his absolute knowledge of war fighting. If he regarded Monty so highly then the Monty haters should stay quiet
Alexander would have been the perfect replacement for Eisenhower. A military professional replacing an amateur but one who also had the political skils and charm Eisenhower had
@@thegreatdominion949 Or there's Archibald Wavell
I see why Americans went with the CCA,B and R structure.
"Propellent explodes," can I nit pick as propellent burns ?
Top stuff Paul...im glad the myth of Brit amour being bad is gradually diminishing ,its also fair to say that trying to modernise an armoured force in war time is no easy task in that if the ones on the shop floor are handed a directive to seen to be acting on orders from the top than this presents a far bigger picture such as why did the Polish horseman charge German armoured cars in 1939 ?? At the Battle of Khalkin gol The Japanese charged Soviet armour ,but there's also a flip side.. in that 3 Cromwell's jumped a Dutch cannel ,wonder if the crews said afterwards( Cah …Cannel... ).
The Brit 6pdr punched way above it did in North Africa ,and was well respected ,same for the Churchill crocodile flame thrower ,the enemy just gave up when that thing turned up ,because they knew they would not have a chance and just get cooked …
so did ww2 for us Brits just become a 6yr trial /suck it and see period ??
The dual-tank type doctrine isn't bad?
A combo then of we were learning with a never ending resupply but the Germans were defending well but had no replacements etc... thanks guys.. great stuff..
Not sure if that's praise or sarcastic
Who's the Ian Dalgliesh or Dudley writer guy. Look for books by those names but didn't find anything.
This is Ian's info and list of books www.wikiwand.com/en/Ian_Daglish. I'm not sure who the Dudley person is, when I get time I will rewatch the video and find out
@@WW2TV Thanks. Perhaps I misheard Daglish as Dudley? And Happy New Year. Really enjoy your channel!
Thanks
@@NewJC: I think the Dudley that you are referring to here is the suburb of Birmingham in the West Midlands where the University of Wolverhampton has a college campus or something similar along those lines?!!
On a different note I wonder if the lesson to be learned in real time by military historians from the tragedy currently unfolding in Ukraine (Slava Ukraini BTW), is that to focus on break throughs, pockets and charges etc., is that they're exceptions to a rule that mostly consists of a grinding and bloody awful artillery duel with all that entails in terms of a more mathematical and logistics based analysis of war.
Bradley was a backbiting animal. Took a long time to reach that conclusion, No doubt effective commander but wanted promotion too much, not near as bad as Mark Clark
Carlo d'Este certainly comes to that conclusion on Bradley if you read Patton: A Genius For War
At that stage of the war, the US Army had to do its best with the leaders it had. The ordinary soldiers suffered for the inflation of their leaders' egos (viz. Bradley's incompetent defensive positions before the Ardennes, Jim Gavin's reluctance to straighten the line, Eisenhower's strategy on non-concentration). Another potential Kasserine was always at the back of British minds.
At 45:50. The comment 'the survivability of a tank halved every 6 seconds' is very widely quoted as if it is established fact. In reality it is taken from a 1945 (published 1946) survey on tank Crew Casualties. The two Doctors mention it in passing but there is no foundation for the remark other than their belief. Far from being fact it is an opinion. The full quote is: '' IF the enemy range is 500 yds his chance of missing is small. IF it assumed to be zero and he fires 10 rounds a minute the chance of survival is halved every 6 seconds.'' It is page 52 from 'A Survey Of Casualties Among Armoured Units In NW Europe. January 1946 by Capt H B Wright RAMC & Capt R D Harkness RAMC.
Bradley started by cutting off the peninsula. That done he attacked Cherborg. Then: Cobra.
Do you know that Bradley planned all that before Overlord? It was called Lucky Strike and included the conquest of France, and that's about how it went.
Clearly you're a big Bradley fan, and I am more of a Monty fan. Bradley was the nicer person, but Monty was the better commander in IMHO
@@WW2TV wrong opinion. Grant was a better General than Lee and Marlburough weas a better general than Villers. But prejudices die hard.
An opinion, by definition cannot be wrong - yours or mine
@@WW2TV oh, but it can! 😎
@@WW2TV 'Nice men' do not spend their entire post-war career trashing their fellow Generals. In fact Bradley was a vengeful and vindictive man. He never recovered from his Bulge debacle where he lost touch with one of his armies but refused to recognise this fact. Monty was called in to clean up his mess and Bradley threatened to resign over it. Eisenhower called Bradley's bluff and told him to go right ahead and do it and he meekly backed down.
Slowness is not the problem. There is L and W. Bradley's opperations were all Ws. Monty "took" Caen, but Caen was never about anything but breaking out.
Monty wanted to do the breakout. He couldn't. That was not the fault of the British soldiers!!! It was HIS fault. He had qualities, but as a field commander he was a washout. He was "in command" of everything in Normandy. Luckilly Bradley started operating independantly.
I completely disagree but thanks for the comment
👍👍😊😊
The intro volume is WAY too loud!
It should be auto equalized
Better title: “British” armor in Normandy
Armour surely, not armor?
@@WW2TV I suspect this was an attempt to indicate most of the British armour in play was Lend Lease armor including medium tanks, light tanks, halftracks, M3 scout cars, Staghound armored cars and T16 Universal carriers which under article V of the Lend Lease agreement of 1942 were to be returned to the US unless lost, consumed or destroyed.
Totalize, Goodwood, Blue Coat.... developement?
How about different ways of failing?
2 out of 3 were broadly successful and even Goodwood had a big attritional impact on the Germans.
Tankers are tankers. Why was it just Sherman’s that haphazardly stowed extra munitions?
Makes a refreshing change to listen to a lecture where the British and Canadians are not being criticised and crucified....usually by our Allies.
You mean solitary (so to speak) other ally.
I'm not disagreeing with you. But I need you to name 1 gun the Germans used in 1944, that could not smash through 100mm of armour? And that big flat plate the driver looked through, was only 4 inches thick.
Edit: If you read the memoirs of German tank aces, they rarely fired at more than 800m. It assured a better hit rate on the first shot.
Ypu lost me at, "read the memoirs of any German tank ace*. Like that's in any way a reliable assessment of anything
Pretty much any AT gun or tank gun below kwk 40 75mm which the germans had alot off
Years ago I had a conversation with a German tankie who served in North 🌍 and France. He reckoned that if the Germans had had British 25 pounders things could well have gone differently. In particular the time it took to get an 88 in to action and the fact that the 88 had a straight trajectory. The 25 pounder could be bought in to action in a very short time, had a high rate of fire and could be used in direct and howitzer mode; hiding a tank behind something did not prevent getting hit!
Come on!
Cobra is "slow" for...2 days?
Basicly Cobra blasts through and all the British attacks are fails or slogs.
Okay, so you're not a Monty fan - look at the German units ahead of the US advance and look at those ahead of the British. Also compare the terrain of Bluecoat to the terrain and roads in Cobra
Glad you have touched on the historians that are anti-British ,most of which have been American ,not all but some …sorry to put that out there ,but have sometimes seen it ,and heard it quit literally in the narrative .
However Mark Urban is that way inclined yet he was an officer in the RTR.
@@californiadreamin8423 Yeah okay ,fair play ,taken over by Cavalry amateurs from the old boys network by the wars end ??
Hmm not so sure ,you always have the different Rgt clubs of ,officers and enlisted men weather its inf ,Guards ,RTR ,Dragoons, Hussars and all in between etc …now for Mr Urban to say the above ,again I think the bloke is a total Knob ,after all he is a journalist ,Kate Addie was another one ,who Brit forces always tried to avoid .
Have a look at the Calcutta Light Horse story against a German merchant ship in Mormugao harbour on the 9th of March 1943,forget the film the sea wolves released back in 1980 ,I think that's an excellent account of an old boys network.👍
If you want to sell a book in the big US military history market: you have to downplay UK and Commonwealth contribution and degrade Monty's role. Even serious US Army practitioners ("Call-Sign Chaos": Jim Mattis) cannot afford to reference Monty directly.
If any military "historian" wants to sell books in the US....a huge market.....the essential content must include trivialising the British effort, criticising Montgomery's "caution" and praising Patton (and ignoring his attitude to shellshocked enlisted men!
Well the truth is quite anti-British and anti-Monty.
@@victornewman9904It's called proportional treatment. You know praising people for doing great and criticising them for doing a lousy job and not praising them for something they didn't do?
...When geeking out morphs into contentious fantasy about the real life disaster that was Sir Bernard.
You know who John Buckley is right? I would vouch he knows more about this subject that you do
Please. Do you know who I am? no. So no arguments from authority, ok?
John is a geek. I am not a geek but I love geekery. I can listen to Greg's airplains for hours.
But the big picture is there too, and some of us glance at it from time to time.
A round from a 17 pounder will kill you. So will a smack on the head with the butt of a rifle. War is about what you accomplish with what you have, not that at 100 meters bla bla bla. (but again, I love that geekery!)
Tanks are killed in a lot of ways. The Germans had mines, antitank guns, panzerfausts, STuG’s, and finally Panzers. Caen wasn’t liberated the first two days. So the Germans had perfect geography for killing zones
Having just come back from Normandy, I was struck by (among other things) the excellent *offensive* terrain in the region around Caen. The good defensive terrain was in the west, generally anywhere west of Port-En-Bessin or so.
Man the organisation of Goodwood is so bad.
Can't believe that Ike didn't listen to Tedder and Coningham and kicked out Monty.
And replace him with who?
@@WW2TV Maybe Percy Hobart or that Wavell guy or Alan Brooke himself or they can pull a page out of the German playbook and get someone from the RAF like Tedder to temporarily take the helm of the 21st. Army group.
Too big a leap for Hobart from a single Division to an AG, Wavell coild have done a job I guess. But personally I think Monty was the best for the job
@@WW2TV Monty's background and the circumstances of his rise to the higher command always felt like that of an interim commander who you get because everyone who was qualified was unavailable for one reason or another and would best not be in command for long and he's already proven that he's one in Goodwood.
Well I for one disagree. I'm a big fan
A "whomping" bombing attack worked for Cobra....
Look, unless you have a guy who knows his business (hint, hint: BRADLEY), you lose.
And how did Bradley do at La Haye du Puits - terrible losses within the 82md, 79th and 90th?
Bradley was only ever a mediocre commander
Cobra happened so fast that the German's COULDN'T react before Mortain - a fail against sn American flank that owed nothing to Monty's "mastery of Stategy".
ok?
Does John still feel that an ancient scythed chariot is best driven by a pig or a sack of spuds? 😂😂😂
Paul your pro-Brit attitude is leaking out. Glad you are an Ipswich fan, Couldn't take it if you were a Spuds fan, from a Gunner fan.
I guesd i am pro Brit, but i like to think I'm pro whatever Allief unit we are talking about at the time
All this talk about Blue Coat being the key to Cobra's sucess is expostfacto justification fMONTGOMERY'S (not the British soldier's!!!!!) fails.
What failings of Monty in Normandy, specifically? If you say Caen, don't forget that US units were slow to get Cherbourg and Saint Lo too
a) I love your show! 😇
b) Monty destroyed the British army at Caen. After weeks of trying the city was taken, but without a breakthrough. The British army was never again able to mount and independent offensive.
c) Bradley took Cherboug in 6 days. Not bad.
d) Cobra BROKE OUT In a few days: it started, and did not stop, going straight through the deepest width of bocage in Normandy.
e) I am not the only guy who doesn't care for Monty. By the Winter of 44 much of the British high command wanted Ike to sack him - which neither Ike nor they could do at that point, because: prestige, press, politics.
It's not that I'm not a fan it's that Monty fannery is a special kind of blindness... of which I am sympathetic because like everything else ww2 it sits atop thousands upon thousands of combat deaths
🧐
How do you get to only 6 days for Cherbourg ?
why didit take till august 44 and the canadians to develop and use the kangaroos?And yet there was a diversity of armoured vehicles!!
I'm assuming no-one had the idea before then. At least no-one with any influence
Several reasons.
The first is that developing APCs that were on tank chassis was very, very expensive. No one thought it was worth the expense. The red army had a design for an infantry-carrying vehicle on the KV chassis before the war. It would have enabled a rifle squad to accompany tanks completely under armor...so even better than the kangaroo. But imagine how expensive it would have been. Consider that before 1943 the British and Canadian armies never had enough tanks, so how could they possibly divert tank chassis to APC production?
Second, since the US was hardly involved in ground combat before mid-1943, the idea wasn't going to come from there. US armored divisions had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions all mounted in armored halftracks, so I don't think the US thought anything like the kangaroo was needed. Post-1945, the US quickly developed full-tracked, fully-enclosed APCs. But even today the US mech infantry, like mech infantry worldwide, use vehicles that are much lighter and cheaper than tanks.
Third, I would say the British armored divisions had truly archaic ideas about combined arms. I don't think it's an accident that the kangaroo idea originated in the Canadian forces, which were far less traditional than their British brothers. In 1944-45 the Canadian mech units were ahead of their peers in operational methods.
@@executivedirector7467 ok thanks but us and german halftracks were known in 1941 AND surely the wastage in 1st class infantry in 1944(especially in the british divisions-despite the 100000 spread around the atlantic and home in the uk) meant apc protection on the battlefield was necessary
I dint know why we waste our time talking about Normandy - the battle and the minuscule tank engagements pale compared to the massive heroic Tank Battles on the Eastern Front - American M4 that they gave to the Russians were only used by the home Guard and in Romanian but the best tanks went head to head T-34 vs the Tiger and Panther.
The Great Patriotic War was won in the East and by 2nd of May Berlin fell to the Soviets, the Western Allies spent to much time messing around in North African and Italy which really was not a German objective, the Italian Campaign fizzled out in the PO Valley. How did they propose to get through the Alps?
The Soviets believed that the Western Allies were not ready to fight the Superior German forces in France, Belgium, Denmark and Germany from 1939/1944.
The Soviets on the other hand took the brunt of the German Assault.
To much talk about Normandy, Netherlands and Belgium. By 1944 the Soviets were all over the Germans and all the best troops were on the Eastern Front.
So, and apologies if this seems a dumb question. Why did you watch a show about Normandy if you are not interested? Immediately after this show was a week on the Eastern Front. We have done dozens of shows on the Soviet contribution with guests like Prit Buttar, Wendy Goldman, David Stahel etc We tackle all theatres on WW2TV, for example we have two weeks coming up on the Sino-Japanese war this December.
Oh and BTW, there's no way the Soviets could have achieved what they did without US Lendlease. Absolutely true that the West wouldn't have achieved victory without the east, but the opposite is also true
@@WW2TV Nonsense about the lend Lease - of the 4000 Hurricanes give the Soviets - they claimed they were slow could not turn or Climb.
The threw them away. The 4000 M4s they were absolute junk.
The only contribution was the Studebaker 4x6 Trucks.
The Soviets produced 50,000 T-34’s 48,000 Yak-9s 100,000 Klimov Aero Engines.
I am tired of these these Englanders talking about their contribution when they were missing in action from 1940 through to 1943.
The Germans pushed them into the sea in 4 weeks in 1940 and they could get back into the war until the Americans Saved them, fed them, transported them and gave them everything.
Then the Americans through the Atlantic Charter effectively disbanded their Empire.
Now that is classic! - they still about it today as if it was their idea.
The question is could the Western Allies have faced the Germans head on in 1940-1944 - The Answer is no.
@@cliveengel5744 you need to study more. Watch the shows with Nigel Askey about Soviet casualties and you'll get a better idea about Lend Lease.
@@WW2TV stop talking about it - The Soviets got to Berlin and took the City on 2nd May from Moscow - Minsk - Kharkiv - Odessa - Kyiv - Smolensk - Volgograd - Ekaterinaberg - St Petersburg - Vilinus - Talin - Warsaw - Krakow - Liviv - Bucharest - Budapest - Prague - - Koniesberg - Danzig - Vienna and on to Berlin.
Pretty Impressive - the allies could barley advance 300 Km - that tells a story,
Comrade 8 out of 10 German Soldiers that perished did so in the Eastern Front.
Time to stop the misrepresentation and propaganda on youtube. The Shermans and Matiliders and Cromwells were so slow the infantry could outpace them.
When the Americans came face to face with the T-34 in NK they were pushed back from the Yula River all the way to the. 39th Parallel.
Enough said
@@cliveengel5744 I'm going to stop engaging with you. You are blinkered and appear to be stuck in years old historiography. No-one is forcing you to watch this channel, and if you can't appreciate Professor Buckley's knowledge, then you are a fool
is it not about time that these tv documentary makes got someone to do proper research when making the docs, the inaccuracies are truly awful, often simple mistakes that a child could get right! since finding this channel i have enjoyed what i have seen and understood the program, maybe you should be on tv instead of these so called experts!
On a level playing field, if Germany had attacked Britain only with its armour at the time of 1939, they would have steam rolled into London. I really think people trying to rehash history is really deluded at times. We had the benefit of reaction to fascism with the help of other nations and got the industry fired up for war.
Yeah sure the German Panzers could have floated across the English Channel 🤣🤣
Rubbish! No, they wouldn’t. It seems you’ve fallen for all the myths of the so-called Blitzkrieg. Panzers on their own (ie, as you suggest, without infantry support) would have suffered in 1939/40 in the exact same way that Shermans in 1944/45 might. And yours is a pointless counter-factual argument, anyway.
Stick to playing at war
US Sherman tanks were useless. They were good target practice for the German 88's. They had high turrets which made them easier targets with limited frontal armor coupled with a useless main 75 mm frontal main gun that did not penetrate German tank armor.
So much wrong in that statement. The 75mm regular gun, could and did penetrate German armour. Look up Sgt Dring of the SRY in Normandy
@@WW2TV Not against a tiger tank.
@@WW2TV The problem with Sherman tanks is that the design was not altered in any significant way until 1945. That was a mistake.
You haven't looked up Sgt Dring have you? @@user-zf7hm1jm9r
Thanks for the comments, but you really need to read more, the Sherman was a fine tank that did what it was supposed to do
At first, I thought I'd made a video that I'd had no idea that I'd actually done.....
Sorry, what?
@@WW2TV same name.......J.B.
Aha, gotcha John!@@EverGlorious22nd168
From what I understand the largest sources of misconception are an inability to understand the difficulties in engaging and the difference in communications capability.
Shermans didn't catch fire particularly easily compared to many other tanks - wet stowage and stowage discipline put sherman high on the list of survivable tanks (a list topped by Churchill rather than any german or soviet giant). Note that both Churchill and Sherman were unusually easy to 'bail out of'.
Regarding air vs land effectiveness - the RAF and USAAF had both been fighting a hard, bitter campaign for some time before D-Day, while many of the ground units were blooded in Normandy.