My grandfather was captured in this battle then later escaped while digging tank traps for the Germans. He was a Sgt running a 155mm howitzer battery and said US equipment in Kasserine pass was all WW1 surplus, and their howitzers kept falling apart after every shot. The Stukas and 88's we're their nightmares as they had no mobility with the old US guns in this battle. Patton and newer split rail guns (and 50 cal machine guns to fight back at Stukas) made a huge difference. It was hell he said.
IT WAS: 1. AMERICAN LEADERSHIP; FREDENTHAL 2. POOR TRAINING; THE AMERICAN TROOPS WERE OUTCLASSED. PATTON AND MONTGOMERY LOVE TO BRAG ABOUT HOW THEY BEAT ROMMEL; AT THIS POINT IN THE WAR MY GRANDMOTHER COULD HAVE BEATEN ROMMEL, HE WAS NOT BEING SUPPLIED.
And later it was the other way around when germany couldn't keep up with american production and supplies. My grandfather, who was a 17 years old soldier on the german side, said that they were so poorly equipped that they basically got outdated equipment from the remaining stocks which was more than half a century old. The good guns went to the higher ranks or more experienced soldiers. If they reached them is a whole other thing since trains, factories and transport vehicles were constantly bombed and attacked at this point in the war. Logistics and good preparation is everything in war.
The 155 mm was a 1930s vintage artillery piece and the US Military including Marines, Army, Army Air Force as well as the British Army, RAF, and SAS all using relatively new equipment actually with no WWI vintage equipment except sniper rifles and some of the Browning M1917 machine guns although some officers of both sides carried WWI and earlier pistols with the Germans, it was usually a C-96, with the US, it was the Colt M1898 revolver in .45 ACP and the British a Webley
@@joangratzer2101 Rommel was extremely under supplied plus he had a trash ally Hitler made the mistake of trusting the Italians, Rommels force in Africa was so small it would have never made a difference in Ussr
@@joangratzer2101 Yes, I noticed at the start he credits the Royal air force with Rommel's lack of supplies , The Royal Navy would like a word with Dark Docs ..lol
I'm Tunisian and my grandfather house is in Kasserine.. smt we visit him it's so amazing how world change most of the scenes and places in the video are now homes, streets comercial buildings except the two mountains they are natural parks ... one more thing a German airfield still exciting until today They use it for agricultural purposes next to it there is a German grave yard
My father fought in north Africa Sicily and Italy. At kasserine ,while the US was in retreat, his column of trucks took the wrong road and had to abandon all their equipment. As he was walking out,he found an American soldier with his face blown off. He carried the soldier on his back to a first aid station. A lot of the baby boomers thought their fathers were cold or seemed detached and distant. If they served in WW2 they,like my father, probably had PTSD. We didn't even know there was such a thing.
My daddy fought at kasserine pass. His name was william herbert moore..he was in the 68th ba..anybody that can share info on the 68th id be very thankful..He passed away January 3rd 1970 so i have limited information..God bless our troops..
Here is a book published in 1945 Combat History of the 68th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 1st Armored Division in World War II If your father was in the 68th fa bn. Often relatives get confused or partial information. I hope this was helpful.
I am a 22 year old. He fought valiantly and I respect our troops of WW2 very very much! Something that a lot of left leaning people do not understand. God bless you Al and your father!
Gen. Fredendal was leading" from the rear and still building his bombproof headquarters many miles to the rear of the fighting forces. He was replaced by Patton and sent back to the US to take up a training assignment. He returned alive while many of his troops were buried on the field of battle.
Unfortunately, General Fredenhal's style was taken to the n'th degree in Vietnam. And it stayed there sad to say. General Patton his necktie wearing order notwithstanding was an outstanding General that comes around once ever few lifetimes. We need one now.
That was typical WWI doctrine. Virtually every military ever trains in the war they already fought. What Gen Fredendal was guilty of was unit discipline and origination. He's been tossed under the bus rather than blame the troops who learned to fight with broomsticks.. My grandfather was here.
I had an Uncle at the Kasserine Pass. He was shot in the leg and limped the rest of his life. He never said a word about what happened there to anyone for the rest of his life. And he was one tough son of a gun, so it must have been hellishly bad.
Inexperienced troops, no matter how well-trained and prepared for it, have to endure being "blooded" as they called one's baptism of fire in those days. The German Africa Corps was battle-hardened, well-equipped and well-led, so the experience must have been very traumatic and tough for the guys on the receiving end. Their sacrifice wasn't in vain, though, as the student eventually became the master and the U.S. Army eventually emerged victorious after a great deal more of fighting in the Mediterranean and European Theaters. Renowned military historian Rick Atkinson wrote a trilogy about the U.S. Army from North Africa to Italy and the Med and finally into Europe. Well-done books, if you are at all interested. "An Army at Dawn" is the first volume and the one concerned with Operation Torch and North Africa, if memory serves. Atkinson's thesis, in brief, is that that all armies must tread the hard road of learning war-fighting, and unfortunately the tuition in that particular school is paid in blood. Good leadership can minimize the cost, but it can't be avoided altogether. Glad your uncle made it home.... my father was a WW2 veteran, though not army, and he rarely spoke of the war years either.
I grew up with Veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. One thing I noticed that if they had experienced the real bad stuff, the stuff that made them drink a lot and have to sleep in separate beds than their wives because they would lash out in their sleep, they had one trait in common; they didn't talk about it. They just didn't. They "might" talk about some of the funny stuff, but not about the carnage or the deaths they saw or caused. The ones I knew rarely went to the VA, or joined the VFW or the American Legion. Many of them had to get away from time to time. They would go fishing or camping and rarely wanted company. More than a few got really drunk out in the woods and come back hungover, a bit grouchy, but calmer. I remember one classmate who said when his father said he needed to go camping, it didn't matter what kind of plans the family had, because that always took president. If his mother was ever upset about this, she never showed it. She just let him go and do whatever he needed to do out there.
@@justinchristoph3725 - Justin, your experience mirrors mine right down to a tee. I am a military historian of long-standing, more years than I like to think quite honestly, and over the decades I've met and spoken with/interviewed hundreds of veterans, including combat vets of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, even one or two WW1 guys (yeah, I'm that old! My grandfather was a Great War veteran), and other conflicts, too. I'm also from a medical family, and am a medic myself. They called the after-effects of combat "shell shock" in those days, or maybe "battle fatigue," if a guy was hurting enough to seek medical help. What we call PTSD - post-traumatic stress disorder - wasn't really known then as it is now. A lot of those guys who saw such fierce combat had to suck it up and deal with it as best they could, once they got home. The reason so few of them talk about their experiences is that they know they've been through something that a civilian - someone who hasn't been through the same experience - most of the time can't imagine. The reason I was able to get a few of them to open up is that once they saw I knew my subject, and was serious about treating it and them right, SOP not to talk to outsiders would sometimes get waived. My dad was U.S. Navy during the war, and he seldom spoke about it. The only time might be late at night after he and my mom had entertained company for a bridge game or something, and they'd had a few adult beverages. Sometimes, after my mom had gone to bed, my dad would come hang out with me and we'd play pool and he'd talk about it, or maybe if I was watching something that reminded him of the old days. I think the kamikazes were the worst for guys in the navy near the end of the war. Tell you one thing, my dad sure was happy he didn't have to take part in the amphibious invasion of Japan! Truman took care of that problem. Another thing I've learned is that the guys who did heroic things during the war and maybe got decorated for it, almost never talk about it or bring it up themselves. It is invariably a relative or something like that, a friend or colleague maybe. Guys talking big and boasting about what they did back in the war is a huge red-flag that someone is not genuine, isn't telling the truth. The guys who were there in the Battle of the Bulge or whatever don't talk about it. And if they say anything, it is that the "real" heroes are the guys who didn't make it home.
@@justinchristoph3725 My grandfather was in the Korean War and he never spoke a word about it. If we wanted to go camping, he would not join us. "Ain't sleeping in no god damn tent!" He died from excessive alcohol abuse.
Inexperienced troops thrown up against battle-hardened , well armed opponents are always at a massive disadvantage. It's how well they recover , and learn , that makes the difference in future engagements. The yanks did recover , and learn. There is no shame in defeat under such conditions. Brave and selfless , these men were simply overwhelmed.
@@markhasleton6403 What have you been smoking? People in America regularly get censored and fired from their jobs if they have dissident views and opinions. Trump getting the boot off of Twitter refutes your naive idealism. The veterans of world war two would be shocked and appalled if they could see what became of their "victory" over fascism.😉
Absolutely, but they were inexperienced and not really ready at the start. Which I got mauled for saying above. But yes, kudos to them for learnign so fast. And plenty of generals got relived for not being up to the fight.
In a way Germany's victory at Kasserine Pass was a mixed blessing. It exposed how unprepared and poorly led US forces were, but it also fooled German leadership into believing that Americans would *always* be unprepared. Not a single German offensive after 1943 succeeded against the US. And despite Germany consistently failing to repeat their victory at Kasserine Pass, they still insisted that Americans were weak and inexperienced all the way until America (and Allies ofc) defeated them in 1945.
@RedAUG True, one could say the British also learned by not constantly chasing after the Germans to the point where they would usually end up within range of their Anti Tank guns.
@@barryrammer7906 Those "warnings" were just Churchill wanting to bleed the Germans with Soviet troops, if he had his way the western allies never would have done D-Day.
@@atlas4536 yeh I guess after British defeated the Luftwaffe. They were relatively safe from a land invasion. The British were professional soldiers by then compared to USA. It's just true look at Admiral King not wanting British help with the convoy system they developed. A lot of egos. We America's had to adapt and overcome 💯. Lessons learned the hard way.
Rommel played to win. With limited men, equipment and supplies against two growing well supplied armies this was his one shot. British troops got sucked in but gave the American troops the time they needed. Africa always was just a proving ground for the US High Command. They learned what they needed from the defeat to make D-Day work. They found what the leaders, the men and equipment could and couldn't do against the Germans. Also because of this battle, Germany weakened its efforts on the Eastern Front, which kept the Russians in the war. They had been threatening to make a deal with Germany if something wasn't done soon. They actually wanted a direct invasion of Europe. This stage of the Africa campaign kinda showed how well that would have turned out. It seems likely that Russia would have done a deal, and the US would have prioritized Japan and just helped Britain build up its defenses.
Are you for real? The reason the Germans lost was the Germans. They had one season to subdue Soviet Russia, and 1 year overall to tie up loose ends or they're kaput. Their own energy ministry knew this before Barbarossa kicked off. If they didn't get a second source beyond Romania to meet their energy needs , they were gonna flounder. And they did. They should've went for Baku and the Caspian before Moscow and stuck with it first.even if the Russians managed to fence off the rest of Russia, had the Germans gained a secured and working source of oil from the Baku and Grozny area alone, they'd have the resources they need to keep up the pace and we'd all be reading about how the gallant and brave Aryan forces crushed the evil and corrupt playboy governments of the US and UK were crushed and it's citizens "freed" before feeding them into the ovens :P
Dude Russia was never going to make a deal with Germany. Cracks me up how people just start making up stuff Lol. I have followed WW2 for years and never heard from anywhere Russia was close to just striking a deal. Russia already struck a deal in which Hitler broke...Russia wasn't going to trust Germany again. The Russians were pissed and understood it would have been annihilation for their people under any kind of deal or surrender. I never even heard Germany offered a deal once they started fighting. Stop making up history.
The Red Army accounted for 76% of German casualties in WW2. Some deal . Of course the West helped them but it is very wrong to try to rewrite history and take the credit for their tremendous achievements.
Many thanks must go to our allies. My grandfather who fought in WWII would say "You can't win a war if you're stupid. One must be willing to learn, especially from one's mistakes."
@@stomper2888 yes. Then he said there will always be dipshits like you that will never know what courage is. I simply think you're too stupid to understand... Anyway, continue to play your COD, pretending to know what sacrifice truly is.
Amazing video, as usual! That said, I still feel Rommel was the best field commander of the war. He never had the supplies and backup he needed and though eventually overwhelmed, he was able to strike violently and effectively until his support eroded in the end. He did his best even though he knew it was an impossible task. His reward - we all knew that!
When Britain sent some young lads to infiltrate & assassinate Rommel, they failed. The final one to die was a young guy, I believe 18 or 19yrs old. Rommel wrote his mother a letter, had him shown full military honours, and made arrangements for the body to be flown back to England to be buried. Extremely clever commander, and indeed a good leader.
He was a fantastic self publicist. Germany had better commanders than most of the allies. He was just one of them. There's a lot to be said for the opinion, that Hitler would have done a awful lot better if he'd just listened to them. Might have even won.!
What great things did Rommel accomplish? He managed to LOSE (or at best draw) every major battle in Africa, with the one exception of Gazala, when he'd been given the complete Allied OOB and battle plans by Bonner Fellers through Ultra intercepts. Rommel's days of triumph in North Africa lasted just 17 - not 17 months, not 17 weeks, just 17 DAYS! (from June 13th to 29th 1942 to be exact)
@@Free-Bodge79 Won, no. There were two things that sealed it, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour. After that the writing was on the wall. Hte one thing I think everyone still agrees on, when debating that history, is that yes Hitler just interfered where he shouldn't have. Right from the start with Dunkirk and all the way to the end when he should have let them withdraw from Stalingrad. You want to be a politician be one but that doesn't make you a general. Otherwise be a general and afterwards run for office but the days of warrior kings ended along time ago. Especially if you are really useless at it. Rommel on the other hand is really difficult to judge. He flew to Berlin asking for fuel for his tanks and got a medal instead. As ineffective as he was on D-day he did judge is right before hand and I think had he had more Tigers to put closer to the beaches they might have staved it off beter. However he lost to Montgomery and some American generals didn't think too highly of Montgomery. Honestly, who know?
The late Colin Powell, 4 Star Gen., former Army Chief of Staff, and Sec. of State, characterized the US Army's experience in North Africa as: "War on training wheels".
Ain't that the truth. To be fair, you don't know how to fight in a war unless you've fought in a war. The Brits had had years of experience. I doubt they or the French fought much better in 1940, and going against Rommel is totally baptism by fire.
Absolutely! North Africa was a whetting stone for the Allies. This was the first time the Americans & British fought together, learning the choreography of dance partners.
COLIN POWELL LIED ON THE FLOOR OF THE U.N. HE TELLS GEORGE TENNANT, "IF I HAVE TO LIE, YOU HAVE TO SIT BEHIND ME." THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR A GREAT MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS BECAUSE OF A LIE. THAT'S A WAR CRIME.
Powell was a Liberal Token General, who supported OBAMA ! He wasn't very effective, a Friend of mine who was a Two Star knew him & also didn't think much for Him ! 💀
My dad was there and spent the next 27 months as a POW. He said there big guns already had 2000 rounds on them when they got there. His name was Worth Columbus Hampton.
A friends Dad who I also spent time Hunting Mule Deer and Elk in Colorado with said He had completed training and had just seen the Movie Sgt York when they learned of Pearl Harbor. He was with a heavy machine gun section atop a high hill at Kasserine Pass. The Germans located American armor by firing machine guns and taking note of deflecting bullets . They then used heavier weapons to knock out the Armor and hidden anti tank guns. Men detailed to watch over jeeps , halftracks etc. hidden below came up warning everyone to get away as best they could as the Germans were everywhere. The destroyed their weapons , casting parts away into the brush and went down to see if they could get their vehicles. The found the Germans trying out their captured vehicles and set out to escape. Walking below a elevated roadway at night in plain view of the Germans who were relaxing and talking. He said at night the German’s most likely mistook them for their own troops. He and some other Men crossed under the roadway at a dry wash and made their way out into the open Desert. The next day they were picked up by a American Half track searching for straggler’s. Because He grew up Speaking both English and Italian (His Parents were both Italian immigrants as were My Dads) He became a guard for Italian Prisoner’s of war.
I disagree. The failure of Allied forces at Kasserine Pass was because of a mixture of non-interacting cultures. Mixing culturally different, different language units, all poorly armed (a large amount of WWI equipent0, and then the mixture of commanders of different language cultures = that's the failure prone condition. The British propaganda effort to blame their American allies for incompetence, to heighten the British egos, has stuck.
Fun fact, the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, was also the unit with the highest casualties during the Iraq War. You can read about it in a book called "They Fought For Each Other" by Kelly Kennedy. The curse of Kasserine Pass is real.
The narrator left out a key component of the Americans' resiliency--Gen Patton. “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!” Vets from that time period have testified they wouldn't be alive if it weren't for Gen Patton.
Rommel's supply problems were not all caused by air bombing. The majority of the work was done by the Royal Commonwealth navies, with the US Navy also contributing significantly to the action. A hell of a lot was achieved by the motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats, PT boats and submarines of the Allies.
...the single biggest mistake the Germans made, of the entire North African campaigns was failing to capture Malta. It was from Malta the British could easily strike at the German/Italian convoys. But Hitler could not make up his mind to order that attack, since he knew he could not count on the Italians, even though their support was crucial to the success of such an operation.
Training & experience are essential for an army, logically the US' army lacked both at the start, luckyly a LOT of officers and NCO started to learn, often in the hardest way, how to fight and WIN, a modern war. A similar situation happened at the start of the Korean war, when a lot of WWII 's veterans had to be recalled in service to train the recruits, also if this was more due to a criminal incompetence of politicians that tought that the A bomb would've been the definitive weapon, making an army obsolete (naturally they were WRONG!).
The Americans were certainly trained. And well-drilled. The problem, I think, at Kasserine was that what they were trained to do during peacetime, stateside, wasn't effective in reality. Perhaps reality should be a molding of training modified by the lessons of experience?
It has to said that the mental state of the soldiers is quite important, my grandfather died 2006 at the age of 97, he was an Austrian soldier fighting in the Wehrmacht at that time under Erwin Rommel's command, he was said, in the Wehrmacht and SS especially was a mindset present:"You win or you rather die". They fought any battle against any probability to win, with the mindset, that failure is not an option. At that time, Rommel did not had a lot of Panzers/Artillery pieces or Airplanes, but the best trained soldiers in the world plus the handicap of having the Italian forces around, that were poorly equipt and trained.
Thoroughly enjoyed your video clip of the battle of the Kasserine Pass. . I did notice a lot of the clip featured the British Eighth Army. Their pith helmets and uniforms plus the Lee Enfield.303 was evident in alot of the clip. I didn't mind watching that. As my late Father served in the British Eighth Army from. 1939 to 1946. Length of the war plus 6 months. He rarely spoke of the war except when I found old black and white photos of him by the pyramids in Eygyt. I was hoping to see more of the American Soldiers in combat. As I thought the Eighth Army was not involved directly in this particular battle. I thought it was the Americans first real contact with the Desert Fox Rommel and the Africa Korps. Hence alot of the video showed Eighth Army soldiers? Was that due to a lack of film of the American Soldiers during the engagement? Still i enjoyed the short video. Great work as per usual. May those who lost their lives rest in peace also. 💪🏼🙏🏻✌🏻
My dad was one of the tank busters here. After this disaster, the army decided to deactivate the tank destroyer units, and dad ended up joining an infantry division as a radio operator.
@@garesonc9672 That was not what I meant. Yes I know the game was not exactly like the actual battle from WW2 but the video for some reason gave me a nostalgic feeling.
@Garry Arden Dr Mark Felton, The Chieftain and Forgotten Weapons are way more factual subject matter experts then this guy who does quantity over quality for his many channels. I am not saying he's the worst but sure as hell far from best.
A much needed learning curve for our American forces that really didn't understand battle at the time. If the world can learn that using their military to take from another Country, it will be a much better place! Free men fight because they know freedom and don't want to lose it, will the Putin's and upcoming Chinese ever learn this!?
*The bravery and skill of the German soldier in combat was breathtaking to behold, demonstrating their superiority in every way. Soldier for soldier, no other army could match them. Only by the allies ganging up on them 10 to 1, could they finally be defeated.* 🌴🌴
By the time the Allies could react efficiently, the Germans had spent almost 7 years preparing for the war that only they were sure would come. They had researched and developed the most modern armaments, from tanks, to machine guns, to anti aircraft guns, to grenades. They built advanced, quality equipment, and had developed and trained an equally advanced army. They had innovative thinkers, but knew they would be outnumbered. They used that innovative thinking to develop the Blitzkrieg, moving lightning fast, against a Europe that was ill prepared militarily and psychologically to fight in another war. They then had the gift of time, to entrench themselves in strategic locations, after occupying most of Europe in a few short months, that would make it extremely difficult to retake, as the beaches of Normandy can attest. So, were they brave and skilled? Most assuredly. And, at the time, no other army could match them, because no other army had prepared for seven years to go to war. They were the professionals, up against the amateurs. And, the army was able to move lightning fast across Europe and into France, in part, because they were supplied with methamphetamines, by the millions, which allowed them to fight with little food or rest. Ganging up on them has the negative connotation of a big guy, picking on a small guy. That phrase can be used correctly when discussing Germany hanging up on Poland, or Norway, or Denmark or Holland and Belgium. The Germans planned across the board to put themselves in the drivers seat, while everybody else twiddled their thumbs. But, when the world, the USA and Great Britain in Europe, finally did catch up, I’d put Patton and his troops up against any Wehrmacht forces, any day. In fact, he won the battle of North Africa against Rommel, he won in Sicily, and he won against the Germans in Europe, driving them back to the borders of their country. The Germans were a great fighting force, no doubt. Their advances in armaments and strategy were indeed breathtaking to behold, as witnessed by their control of Europe for almost four years. But, they allowed themselves a huge advantage from the start, of surprise and military advancement that had no comparison. They are a remarkable people as witness their recovery after WW II. From a vanquished, destroyed country, they have risen to become a world financial power house, reunited with East Germany, and thriving while even absorbing that population. But, superior in every way, soldier for soldier?
@Abcde I would not presume to ask how you drew that conclusion. The Treaty of Versailles, after WW I, set the stage for WW II, when it attempted to drive Germany into the ground with its reparations, and other sanctions, which drove Germany into an economic nose dive. The driver of this plan was the French, who had suffered more than the British because the war was fought on their land, not England’s. As a result, Germany suffered a catastrophic economic collapse, from which they could not seem to recover. The Germans violated every tenet of the Versailles Treaty, without a word from France or England, as they built up their army. Poland??? Poland sat like an apple ripe for the taking. An antiquated army, still riding horses, was no match for the German blitzkrieg. The Germans had secretly agreed to let Russia take the eastern part of Poland, while they took the west. The Russians had no great love for Poland historically, and overran all of Poland as WW II came to an end. Poor Poland had nothing whatsoever to do with starting the war, but their flyers did escape to England, where they actually taught the British fliers new techniques which helped them win the Battle of Britain. The Poles also escaped with information on how to decode the German Enigma machine, which they took to Bletchley Park and was used to break the German code. And, you think the Poles, sitting ducks for both the Russians and Germans, had something to do with started the war which divided their country? Historians have examined the causes of WW II up one end and down the other, and I have never heard mention of the Poles having anything, whatsoever to do with the starting of WW II. The French drove the harsh penalties inflicted on the Germans, and the British went along with it. Those penalties, including the huge reparations, drove Germany to become open to anyone who would move them back from the abyss, and that was Hitler. So, the Treaty of Versailles was the catalyst for pushing Germany into the dire situation it found itself in after WW I. In fact, the reparations were so crushing that Germany toon the better part of 90 years to finish paying it off, in 2010. And the cause of the war, was Germany’s aggressive military plan, to subjugate the countries to their east, making them the breadbasket for Germany, and their intentional plan to annihilate those who were considered inferior. Their definition of inferior grew to include many who weren’t Jewish, as in Poland, where they killed about 1.5 million people, the leaders and intelligentsia of the country, in an attempt to destroy Poland’s culture. So, who was responsible for WW II? Certainly not Poland, and with almost complete certainty, Germany, on its own, even with the financial circumstances after WW I. They are the ones, and they alone, who decided that financial recovery would take the path of military conquest, instilling fear and horror across all of Europe, and every country which they invaded, including Russia.
@Abcde So your thinking is that because the German population in Poland was portrayed by the Germans as being badly treated, that the Germans were pushed into invading Poland in order to protect them? The Germans had already annexed Austria, and the Sudetenland, for the same reason, and that had alarmed the world, especially France and England, simply because the Germans had no right to do so. They INVADED those two countries and the world drew a line in the sand, don’t go near Poland. If we follow the German logic, then anywhere they determine there is a German population that they feel is being badly treated they can invade and take it over. The civilized world doesn’t work that way, and didn’t then. As for England somehow persuading Poland to behave in a way that would provoke war, The Poles knew they weren’t prepared for war, and always feared Russia too, on the Eastern border. The Germans wanted war. They invaded sovereign countries knowing what would happen. There was never anything altruistic or benevolent about the Germans. They had a plan and no one pushed them into anything. They decided to cause havoc and mayhem and murder about 10,000,000 people they felt were inferior to them. In 1933, Hitler took over. His vision was to have Germany control Europe, and beyond, most especially the oil fields of the Middle East, and use the countries of the east, like Poland, as an agricultural area. That vision was Germany’s vision in 1933 and England didn’t know anything about it, nor did the rest of the world. The Germans were complicit in starting WW I, and almost solely responsible for starting WW II.
@Abcde War is never simple, and motives are sometimes cloudy, at the time, by skewed viewpoints or propaganda. But, now, nearly 80 years later, the perspective is clearer, and historians have examined documentary evidence of how the war unfolded. After 80 years, they might have an agenda, but it is more likely in the ensuing years, that the truth might be revealed. Here are a few of them. Rearmament and expansion were the two key elements of the Nazi regime. That is fact. They had to do this without alarming the countries that might react, France, Great Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia, before they were ready to put their plan in action. So, they set about convincing the German people and the world that they were, in fact, victims. Victims of the Treaty of Versailles, victims of the Jews, victims of the French and British, always victims. Their propaganda was designed to do just this. Nazi propagandists disguised military aggression, aimed at territorial conquest, as righteous, and necessary acts of self-defense, trying to make their aggression morally acceptable. They cast Germany continually as victims, or potential victims, of foreign aggressors, and as a peace loving nation. This hid their true intentions of territorial and racial warfare. And, we can accept that because this was exactly what happened, they invaded countries and murdered more than 12 million people. It was all designed to misdirect the people of Germany, and the rest of the world. To present the coming invasion of Poland as morally defensible, the press played up “Polish atrocities” referring to real and alleged discrimination and physical violence directed at ethnic Germans within Poland. In fact, Poles turned on Germans after the Germans invaded Poland, and killed approximately 5,000 to 6,000. Germans claimed the number was 60,000. Again, propaganda at its finest. To promote this fraud, SS men, dressed in Polish Army uniforms, attacked a German radio station at Gleiwitz. The next day Hitler announced to Germany and the world his decision to send troops into Poland in response to Polish aggression. Again, Germany was portrayed as the victim. And, now the responsibility for declaring war would be on France and Great Britain. Examining the repercussions of the German invasion of Poland on the Polish people, will show the Polish culture decimated, more than 1.5 million Poles killed, including the highly educated, intelligentsia, doctors, professors, and teachers. And, this was done to save those ethnic Germans who were being persecuted by the Poles? You simply can’t believe that, given this horrendous outcome. And, that does not include the millions of Polish Jews also murdered. WW II a pulled the world out of the Great Depression, so you might say that capitalists pushed the idea of war forward to fulfill that goal. You might take a lot of perspectives and turn them to fit your agenda about who caused the war. But, there is no denying that Germany was, in fact, at the heart of the start of aggression, had a military plan in effect for eight years before the war started, and that no one was invading Germany, but Germany was, indeed, invading and destroying many other countries.
@Abcde For the moment, let’s assume it is true that the Poles did attack the Germans, in Poland. Can you not see, at this point in time, that the Germans were in a position, militarily, not to care one darn bit about the impact of the Poles attacking the Germans? It didn’t matter one iota. It’s only importance was as a propaganda tool, and the Germans used those attacks as a reason for invasion. Consider that it took the Germans a mere 35 days to conquer all of Poland. It was hardly a fight. Who would you say was actually prepared for a war, the Germans or the Poles? And, the Germans and the Poles both knew this. So, whether the Poles killed Germans in Poland, or the Poles didn’t kill Germans in Poland, became irrelevant to the Germans. They used the existing bad feelings that existed between the Germans and Poles within Poland, to invade and almost annihilate the entire Polish culture. You think that this can be justified by the Germans who were persecuted within Poland??? More than likely, the carving up of German territory at the end of WW I was the reason for Germany invading Poland. You see, Poland was given the port of Danzig, including a corridor running right through Germany. Of course, it included many German citizens, who were now living in Polish territory. That was the reason there were many Germans living in Poland in the first place. And, the hatred for Poland within Germany, went so far, that they agreed to let the Russians have the eastern half of Poland, while they took back the western half, including Danzig. We are again seeing the Germans remedy the terms of the Versailles Treaty, by force, if necessary. But, Germany still needed to convince its people that war was necessary. They had just been through WW I and had lost 2 million soldiers. These fathers, brothers, uncles, were still vivid memories. So, they searched for the stories that would rouse their people to action, like the sinking of the Lusitania was to America, or Pearl Harbor in WW II. No more discussion about defending your country. Someone attacked you, so the response is automatic. That’s what Germany needed and that’s what they got, either real or perpetrated. Just look at the end result to witness the gross inequity of the forces involved. The Poles were severely ill prepared for war, as most of Europe was. Yet, they would provoke their neighbor, Germany, to the point of war by attacking Germans? No. Germany wanted the port of Danzig back. Germany had been preparing for war for 8 years, while the rest of Europe slept. They did this in secret, knowing the war machine they were producing would be used just as it was, to overrun Europe, gain territory and rid the world of inferior people. There is no secret now about that. Were there many reasons for the start of WW II? Yes, of course. But, without the German plans to conquer the world, it just doesn’t happen. That the Germans were the catalyst and driver of the aggression has never been the question. Hitler was determined, by any means, to invade Poland. He would have made that happen using real or imagined situations. Notice that after annexing Austria, the easiest, and the Sudetenland, the next easiest, he chose Poland to invade. 35 days and done. He knew that Poland’s ties to England and France would draw them into a war. But by then, he was emboldened by their lack of response, and, indeed, he was correct. You seem to be defending Germany and it’s role in causing one of the most catastrophic events in history. WW II a is a very complex story. But, in all that complexity, no where is Germany’s role in its causes diminished in any way. Can their reasons be justified? In some minds, I guess that answer would be yes, but not for the rest of the world. Europe was in rubble, including Germany, which the rest of the world felt was justified. Twenty million people were dead, including millions of kids. Justified by Poland’s treatment of the Germans within their borders? In retrospect, most people would say no.
It fails to mention that Rommel had to share command with Von Arnim who commanded the 10th Pz Div and that Arnim hesitated when total victory was in sight.
Hitler had everything to win a war in europe but the fact he had to fight on 3 fronts made it impossible. He made so many mistakes from early on and everytime someone warned him and said he shouldn't do it.
I knew other old timer’s who fought in North Africa and up through Italy. One had fought the French and sent a French Rifle Home as a souvenir . Somewhere in transit it was stolen. He did show Me a beautiful early model K-98 rifle that was not stolen in route. My Uncle who was a water cooled 30 cal machine Gunner who came to the 34th as a replacement at the end of North Africa said that they often were trucked to the front where they were told to leave their packs that were then raided by truck driver’s for souvenirs. There were heated arguments over taking from the dead both German and our own. There were those who reasoned that the dead no longer had use for watches , lighter’s jewelry , rings etc. My first generation American Uncles of Italian ancestry were patriotic Americans who Found their German Enemies to really be little different from themselves. Place of birth determined who’s side one fought on. I met a German Immigrant who Grew up under Hitler who’s Son became a fighter Pilot in the United States Navy. A friends Dad had been one of the Swimmer’s in the North African port seizure operation. He later sold used books in San Francisco. I knew a old carpenter who was in North Africa. He said that when the Germans opened up with those 88’s guys would shit their pants , run blindly off cliffs or impale themselves on tree branches in the dark. After being wounded there He repaired damaged landing craft in the Pacific. He was also of Italian ancestry and complained that Roosevelt sent a lot of Italian’s to Africa to test their loyalty to the US. My Dad was the youngest of five boys , six older and one younger sister. His Dad , My Grandfather was a decorated veteran of Adwa. Barely escaped with His life from that one in 1896 at about 18 years old.
Interesting Story...my grandfather (Born 1925) fought in the Wehrmacht in italy from 1944 on and During the Retreat to north, got captured by the british in carinthia, near the Southern Border of Austria today. (luckily before getting captured by Partisans)..He told me, the british troops treated Them quite fair, He Had to Cut woodlogs and trees in the surrounding Woods. He was sent Home in 1946, graduated as a teacher and married grandmother...and now, 80 years Later, we are commenting on youtube..it's a crazy world...
It is the first time in my 50 years that someone fully explained the battle of kasserine to me. With the background and complete environment, Thank you very much and greetings from Patagonia Argentina
American military from Torch went to invade Sicily & Southern Italy in the Rome campaign. My uncle (for whom I'm named) was in the 34th Red Bull division & was awarded a Silver Star in Tunisia. He was KIA near Mt. Pantano near Monte Casino, Italy and is buried in the American military cemetery in Nettuno, Italy near Anzio.
I believe the decision to hold North Africa is a less talked abt turning point for the Allies,as it later proved vital for all the amphibious landings the Allies would later use to side line the germean defenses of Italy had they withdrawn timely from Tunisia and brought the main force to Sicily and mainland Italy the war would have been different
The German high command called the North African campaign a sideshow as the main war effort was in the East. That was ultimately where they lost the war. Although the experience the Allies gained in Africa was important it had little impact on the ultimate defeat of Germany. Americas great achievement of WW2 was to be able to avoid a lot of the hardships faced by other nations, particularly the Soviet Union and the UK, but be part of the victorious group at wars end.
If FDR had not propped up Britain from 1939 Hitler would not have declared war on the USA, how does that work out for UK and USSR? 1941 December 170 M3 light tanks in North Africa, 108 in the Philippines. Escort carrier HMS Audacity (Hannover when captured in the US "Neutrality" Zone) lost with four F4 Wildcats. 1942 June Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.
The American contribution in WW2 was indeed remarkable. It was the only power that could fully supply two huge theaters of war, plus re-supply the western allies and put supplies into Russia. However, the combat contribution of the US was not in its GI's. It was in logistics and fire power - specifically, getting the ammo to the guns, and air power. Politicaly, American leaders knew their voters would not accept huge numbers of casualties for countries that had fought wars for centuries. But they would work lots of overtime building the machinery that would defeat the enemy. Inversely, the Russians knew that it would take lives and space to have time to build the forces needed to stop and defeat Germany. Too many historians overlook the fact that Germany suffered heavy losses in the initial invasion of Russia even though the Russian army almost collapsed. The Germans were in fact shocked when they first encountered the T-34 tank, which they didn't even know existed. Anothrer fact is that 4 out of every 5 Germans killed in WW2 were killed by Russian arms - not American, British, Canadian, or French. The Americans lost 27,000 in the Battle of Normady, which lasted a month. The Russian lost that many in the first week of the Battle of Stalingrad, which went on for two months. They lost 88,000 men in the Battle for Berlin. Between Stalingrad in 1942 and Berlin in 1945, the Russians lost 12 million soldiers out of a totall war loss of about 22 million, the Germans 8 million. By contrast, the US KIA in all of WW2 were 404,000. The largest battle in US histoty was the Heurtegen Forest wherein the Americans suffered 72,000 casualtis. By percentage of population, Poland suffered the worst in the west - China by far, in the east with about 30 to 45 million from 1933 to 1945. Millions more from 1945 to 1967 due to the Communists purging the country. I used to be gung ho "Murica!" all the way, until I realized what these figures mean to other countries. We are not the center of the universe. For a chilling view of the casualties of WW2, I suggest the UA-cam video, "The Fallen of WW2" Mindboggling.
Recognize that it was an alliance of United Nations that defeated the Axis Powers. No single nation could have faced them and come out on top. Everyone spilt blood to see fascism destroyed.
As General George S. Patton Jr. said, "You Don't Win Wars By DYING For Your Country. You WIN Wars By Making The Enemy DIE For Their Country!" 25,000,000 + subjects of the Soviet Empire dying during their war against Germany 1941 to 1945 is a tragedy. One Third (33%) of the trucks used by the Soviet Union were made in the USA. Some also were manufactured in Canada or the UK. 20,000 + M4 "Sherman" tanks, mostly the diesel engine versions and a similar number of US aircraft were provided to the USSR, as were Vital strategic minerals and other essentials without which the USSR could not have produced as many of their own weapons. If the USSR had sued for a separate peace, the USA, UK, Commonwealth, and our Allies could have liberated Western Europe, and probably even defeated Nazi Germany. (Western) Allied Airpower was overwhelming! The vast majority of the Luftwaffe was committed to fighting them, and were destroyed. The pipe dream of Strategic Bombing would have to be given up. Most of the Heavy Bombers would have been committed to destroying the rail yards railroads, bridges, and other logistics. Medium bombers targeting Enemy Airfields and logistics. A "Bonus" would be that Allied Fighter planes could accompany our bombers all the way. No matter how skilled the soldiers, without fuel, ammo, food, spare parts and other logistics, they would be defeated in detail. As in North Africa, Italy, Moritain in France, or the Battle of the Bulge, Allied Airpower would savage any significant German attacks or counter-attacks! The war would have taken longer, at least into 1946 or even 1947. Allied, primarily US attacks would have to be more deliberate. It is unlikely that the Germans would have retreated from France in August 1944. On the other hand the Allies would have the time to build up their logistics. By 1946 I would be willing to put 10,000 new M26 Pershing tanks vs. a couple hundred Jagdtigers (that would mostly be destroyed by rocket firing P47s and Typhoons) Gloster Meteors and US turbo-jets vs. ME262s.
Re: "The American contribution in WW2 was indeed remarkable. It was the only power that could fully supply two huge theaters of war, plus re-supply the western allies and put supplies into Russia. However, the combat contribution of the US was not in its GI's. It was in logistics and fire power - specifically, getting the ammo to the guns, and air power." That's an oversimplification, and then some. You are correct that without the " Arsenal of Democracy," the U.S. had fifty percent of the world's industrial output by 1945 - the allied war effort would have been in dire straits. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" is a time-honored military aphorism and for good reason. However, you slight the sacrifice of the Americans KIA, WIA and MIA in that war. Here's why... The casualties suffered by the USSR, to use one example, were enormous. However, they must placed in the proper historical context. Josef Stalin was a brutal dictator whose record of murdering his own countrymen makes him one of history's worst and most-blood thirsty tyrants. He and the rest of the party leaders were not responsible to the Russian people for the slaughter which took place on their watch. They held elections in Stalin's USSR, but they didn't mean anything. Stalin left power only upon dying, which happened in 1953. Stalin, who was probably an actual sociopath, fed his countrymen into the meat grinder without remorse and without compassion. Is it any wonder that they suffered so horribly? And even absent his malice and ruthlessness, Stalin's ineptitude in purging the Red Army on the eve of the war condemned millions of his countrymen to death during the early months and years of the war. Western leaders, including Churchill in the U.K. and Roosevelt in the U.S., had to wage war just like their Soviet counterpart, but all the while staying mindful of public opinion and morale. British morale had been crushed in the trenches of Flanders in WWI. throughout the war, Churchill was gripped with the fear that WW2 would see a repeat of that bloodbath. That's one big reason he argued so hard for attacking Fortress Europa (occupied Europe) via the "soft underbelly" of through the south and the Balkans. His concern over the British Empire was another factor, to be sure, but fear of huge casualties was the big one. In order to wage the war, the PM had to remain in office, and if the British public hounded him from 10 Downing Street, that would not have been possible. Anti-war sentiment was widespread in the U.S. between the wars, and even once Pearl Harbor had been attacked, many Americans favored letting the Europeans bleed each other dry while the U.S.dealt with Japan. FDR's problem was that the U.S. was pathetically ill-prepared to fight a war in 1939, at least in many respects (not all, but that's another topic). Even if the U.S. had wanted to wage a land war on the scale of the USSR, it was not prepared to do so, not even remotely, since they not only needed a huge, modern army but a means of transporting it to the battlefield halfway around the world. There were people in the U.S. calling for an invasion of the European mainland in early 1943, but I've always wondered what they were smoking/drinking, because that was literally a pipe-dream. We could barely scrape together enough of a landing force to invade Guadalcanal in August 1942 in the Pacific and mount Operation Torch in November 1942, the invasion of North Africa. The American losses in WW2 were comparative low not because U.S. troops lack fighting spirit, skill or bravery, but because almost alone among the major participants her homeland escaped destruction. Apart from Hawaii and Alaska, which were both territories, and U.S. possessions in the Pacific, the war was not fought on U.S. soil. The Greeks, Poles, and Chinese suffered disproportionate casualties during the war, as calculated on a per-capita basis - in addition to the Russians.
DARK DOCS!!!.... I LOVE YOUR DARK CHANNELS! I THINK I HAVE THEM ALL NOW, & WATCH THE RITUALLY NOW!!!! DARK 5 GOT ME STARTED, & I'VE BEEN WITH YOU SINCE YOU STARTED YOUR OTHER DARK CHANNELS! LOVE THE NARRATION, VIDEOS ARE WELL DONE, & APPRECIATE THE ACCURACY & EFFORT Y'ALL PUT INTO IT!!! THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK YOU DO!!👍
Something Rommel did earlier screwed up the Germans taking Malta. And it was precisely because the Brits could retain Malta that they were so successful in screwing up Rommel getting those extra supplies later on.
I for one would appreciate additional information re: the American troops "willingness to learn" and subsequent victories after their defeat at Kasserine Pass. Great vid though!
A great book is “The US Army in Europe 1943-1945”. A great example would be how unprepared the Army was for the hedgerows in Southern France. Enlisted troops created rhino tanks by welding scrap metal to Sherman tanks and cutting through the obstacles which were tenaciously defended by German troops.
As I recall, the scratch British force actually contributed heavily to the defence of the front with multiple infantry and armoured units, but your video sort of makes it out as though they didn’t do much beyond getting sucked in. Other than that it’s very good.
@@destroyerarmor2846 don’t be that guy. The guy that’s wrong. Britain hated the treaty of Versailles. If you mean not attacking Germany sooner, we’ll, don’t see anyone else taking that step either.
I remember hearing of starving German soldiers of the 6th army rushing to the planes that made it and one was full of black pepper and another plane full contraceptives must have been horrible being surrounded and forbade to break out
Rommel, tremendous general, a real cunning desert fox ! Had he had the overwhelming supplies the Allies had, he would have conquered the whole of North Africa. His Afrika Korps (troops and Panzers) were something to contend with...tough, brave, experienced soldiers backed by first-class tanks like the Tiger...They deserved a better outcome for their efforts.
Not true. The Afrikkorps had no Tiger tanks. All of the Tigers in Africa belonged to Panzerarmee 5. A company of Tigers collaborated with the Afrikakorps at the Sidi bou Zid battle, but there were none in the Kasserine Pass battle.
@@rainbowseeker5930 That's not true either. Rommel never commanded Tigers in Africa. When he wanted them for the Kasserine Pass, he had to ask for them, and he didn't get them. Von Arnim wasn't interested. Rommel was nominally in charge of everything for his last few days in Africa, but he was too busy at the Mareth line to do anything with Panzerarmee 5. So Von Arnim launched an offensive without Rommel's permission. Once again, Rommel was not commanding the Tigers.
There were also US NAVY frogmen assigned there with the Engrs..My grandpa was one of em, He was first deployed at the battle of Marocco Bay and fought in the entire N Africa campaign..I have a picture of him and his buddies in a gun emplacement also he took lots of pictures in Algieria and even got a long shot of Gen.Patton on his Sherman tank..
Kesserine foi apenas o momento final de uma série de batalhas que lhes precedeu - nenhuma delas comandada por Rommel, mas sim por Von Arnin. Poderia ter resultado numa grande vitória alemã e num grande atraso na finalização da campanha da Tunísia (para os aliados). Não foi uma única derrota do exército aliado (britânico, americano e francês), mas uma série de derrotas que demonstraram o quantos os americanos estavam "verdes" para o conflito e quão mal funcionava a coordenação conjunta dos aliados. Ao final, alemães e italianos perderam em parte por erros próprios, mas em grande parte por absoluta carência de recursos e inferioridade aérea. Em 3 meses, seriam expulsos do Norte da África, principalmente pela ação do 8o exército britanico.
Even regular troops of today would have their ass handed to them very easily by almost WW2 combat troops. Because they "knew how to win." You can't train that into someone.They have to find it by staying alive. That's what happened at this 1st meeting with German troops.♥️😎
M10s were only coming into service in theatre of operations at this point in the war and M18s would appear very late in 1943 early 1944, M36s didn't appear till 1944.
I believe they had 75mm not 57mm and their performance early in the war over all was quite good. They were not pulled out of service because they failed, just better options became available.
The earliest vehicles used as "tank destroyers" in North Africa were open trucks - flat-bed trucks - with artillery pieces mounted on them. These were termed "portees" by the British, and they attained a mixed record in action. The guns could not be especially large since the trucks were not purpose-built for this sort of work. Later, the Americans mounted a 75mm gun upon/in an M3 half-track, a variation on the British practice. Finally, anti-tank artillery enclosed in a superstructure or turret was mounted on tank chassis with treads, in the manner of the M10 and later the M36 and M18. These various expedients competed with towed anti-tank weapons for much of the war with both forms of weapon having proponents and detractors within the ranks of the U.S. Army. Anti-tank doctrine underwent a number of revisions during the war, whether formal or informal, regarding how to best employ anti-tank artillery in mobile operations. Emplaced AT artillery can be heavier and therefore hit harder at longer range, but such weapons are large, heavy and require heavy-duty prime movers in order to tow and emplace them. And emplacing them takes time, even for the best-trained and most-experienced crews. Self-propelled anti-tank artillery and TDs had the virtues of mobility and not needing much if any emplacement or preparation for use. Just drive it into position and you are more-or-less ready to go to work. Eventually, the army evolved doctrine that used fixed and therefore heavier anti-tank guns (which also doubled as anti-aircraft guns in many cases) as a backstop to mobile AT assets, for example, in the case of an enemy counterattack penetrating the first layer of anti-tank screening weapons whereupon the fixed guns could, if sited properly, take on the enemy forces. Mobile AT assets would accompany the spearhead of the advance, and provide anti-armor coverage until the heavier fixed artillery assets could be brought forward. Many indirect fire artillery weapons such as 105mm and 155mm howitzers, though not designed as anti-tank weapons, were provided with AT shells for use in case they were called upon to act in that role on an emergency ad-hoc basis. And their high-angle fire with conventional HE proved extremely useful, too, in deterring enemy vehicles, armor and troops. Even the best protected tank crew does not relish being caught in the open under a rain of 155mm rounds headed in-bound.
This is a good example how strong the german army was. Even with huge logistical problems, running low on fuel and ammunition, Rommel smashed the alliance. Imagine germany would only fight the us and Britain...i think we would all speak german today 🫡
Whilst the Dark Docs channels cover awesome, interesting and rarely covered subjects, they often use broad statements, generalisations and have twisted facts and events to sound better.
I worked in a beef packing house in my twenties, so I worked with a WW2 vet who was in the north Africa campaign. A couple of his stories said as much about the German army, but his favorite story was mocking how the Arabs had to squat sort of like a woman to pee to keep it off of the long frocks they wore.
I served in the 82nd as an Infantry Paratrooper (Desert Shield/Desert Storm)and the things we saw the Arabs do in so many different occasions just threw my mind. From screwing goats masturbating in front of us men to whipping their females it was an eye opener and nothing I wanted to be part of, nor protect.....but there I was. Protecting and defending with my life. THE OIL!
Not sure why Gen Patton is shown in the beginning of the clip when Lieutenant General Lloyd Ralston Fredendall was U.S. Commander in the Battle of Kasserine Pass.
The American brass wasn't all that adaptable... they maintained the fallacy of anti-tank guns and "tank Killers" right up to late 1944. They resisted the development of the Pershing tank that every tanker in the US Armed Forces was pleading for and never really got. The 20 they finally got in 1945 was too little way too late.
A documentary video about the battle of The Kasserine Pass without even one mention of the name of the fail and coward commanding American general: Lieutenant General Lloyd Ralston Fredendall is NOT only incomplete and grossly injustice to the dead allied soldiers BUT also a horrible negligence and incompetent of the documentary producer! Lt. Gen Fredendall is the major (and only) factor in this defeat.
@@redaug4212 it was till the air side became involved.once allied air power came into play it was only a matter of time. Doesn't help Germany didn't have any oil fields besides the ones on Hungary.
@@kyleschafer6275 Germany's defeat in the Ardennes came early. A lot of people tend to chalk it up to Allied air power or German supply issues, but really they lost the battle in the first four days when the 6th Panzer Army failed to push through Elsenborn Ridge as envisioned by Hitler's "Big Solution" plan. Despite possessing the element of surprise, numerical superiority, and enough fuel to get their armored units to the Meuse, they ultimately failed because their entire plan depended on the US forces retreating or capitulating like they did in North Africa. In other words, it was a tactical defeat turned strategic disaster for the Germans.
CoD players be like "this wasn't actually that hard. Just ran up to the bunker, threw some 'nades in there through the gunport, then slipped inside and ran to the exit while shooting everyone. Once outside, the whole company was already there and we all sat and had a smoke. Nothing to it, really."
I have a particular interest in Operation Torch, the DAK & the whole of the North African Theater of Operation. This is a good, but small chapter of the conflict. I enjoyed this presentation. Thank you.
Great video, but I feel cheated. What exactly did the US forces do when adapting to German tactics? What differences were there from the defense of the pass to the defense of the town?
The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a bloody nose for the U.S. Army at first but after the Americans fell back 50 miles, they were reinforced, reorganized, and counterattacked and took back _all_ the ground that they had initially yielded to the Germans. The U.S. Army's effective and successful counterattack at the Kasserine Pass is hardly ever mentioned.
Good video, except for the Tank Destroyers were not neutralized they barely escaped down a path on the backside of the Mountain that a P40 saw and came back and lead them to it allowing them to escape and fight another day. You take on really good topics but your research is sometimes lacking or seems rushed. Take the time make it a longer video, believe me you have a lot of people watching and would get an even larger group of avid WWII Historians to watch. Hell, A lot would even be willing to help your research out, as most of us don't consider it work but enjoyable. You don't even point out that the Actual Command Element of the U.S. and French forces wasn't even at or near the battle but over 100 miles away in a bunker. You mention only a few of the Units and not even by their Divisions like 1st Infantry ( Big Red One) 1st Armored Division which was decimated on fake with drawl by Anti-tank guns. This one almost felt as if you read only the Wiki-page and only part of it. I am not trying to bring you done, I am trying to help you, with your content as you do cover a lot of Interesting History, but you sell yourself short and by glancing the depth that could really make this a great channel and stand out. Just remember quality over quantity when dealing with History and you will never go wrong. Also, with this topic you are not going to get the younger gen as much as middle and older, who enjoy a fully fleshed out video and will stay for 30mins- over an 1hour. Drachneal (Sp) videos are very good at this.
I endorse your comments, Major. It would also be goog if the videos matched the narration. It gives the impression that American troops wore British uniforms and that Patton was at that battle. Of course most viewers understand that is stock footage but it can be misleading if not edited properly.
The mention of U.S. Trenchs reminded me that the "Trenchs" were SLIT trench, like only a foot or so deep. Germen Tankers would turn and drive up the Slit trenches, crushing the solders hiding in them.
You know, I want to thank those few brave American men who stayed the course in this battle, which eventually turned things around. I am proud of all of you. Well done men, your sacrifice was not in vein! Today, living in America I am a FREE man because of men such as yourselves. Thank you very very much. -Peter age 72
One must remember that US leadership wanted an early European front. Churchill was adamant against it, offering 'raids' on the continent as an alternative (which was unacceptable to Americans), so Africa was chosen. Kasserine Pass was a valuable lesson, in both naval invasions and land combat. Or as is put for startups - fail fast, fail cheap. This would not have been possible during an invasion of France. But it is also a lesson in the 'unknown unknowns' - before being tested in a real life scenario, especially if it is a huge endeavor, it is good to get some realistic feedback on your product.
who exactly? The German troops supporting a racist dictator or the Americans supporting a racist democracy? I would argue Martin Luther King etc. are just as good.
New ally :D ? US was supporting and supplying the Brits long before entering the war. In fact they were at least in a passive manner in it for pretty much day one. They wanted to wait until it was obvious that the Axis couldn't stand any longer and were shocked to see them keep going. So they supplied even the Soviets and since Germany was quite aware of the US supplying the British they destroyed the ships from the US that took way in European territory. Since they sent supplies with civilian ships as well the Germans also attacked those ships by the way. The US wanted to wait until all war partys would be exhausted and at their limits to act and have an easy game. Even that this than was cancelled by the attacks and war declaration of Japan and Germany, they just did that but with a bit more dirty hands than they wanted to make. But when the war was over they took all they wanted anyways and unfortunately the Soviets were still able to stand as well. What an irony because without the US they would most likely would have been distinguished or at least not been able to go on at all. I mean even that the eastern frontline also collapsed because to much progress and Logistic not able to keep up with it, another reason was that the main focus now went back to the western frontlines. And in the end the Axis not had enough men and ressources to keep going but especially holding both lines. It just all collapsed than.
The 88mm dual-purpose Anti-aircraft/anti-tank gun was famously lethal, and many Allied troops dreaded it. However, it was not especially unique in any real sense, other than how the Germans employed it. True, it was a superb weapon but most major nations by then fielded anti-aircraft guns in the same size and performance range. The United States, for example, had 90mm guns in their inventory, and the British the famed 17-pounder gun and other capable designs, and they weren't alone. The key German insight was that anti-aircraft guns shared in common many of the desirable characteristics of an anti-tank gun, i.e. - flat trajectory, high muzzle velocity, good performance at extended ranges, etc. The first recorded use of the 8.8cm gun as a dual-purpose weapon occurred during the Spanish Civil War. The Germans were again reminded of the utility of the weapon when 88mm guns were pressed into service on an emergency basis to repel French armor counterattacks during the Battle of France in the spring of 1940. Having discovered how adaptable a weapon they possessed, the Germans then designed an assortment of carriages and sights for its use in various roles, some for anti-tank use only, some for AA use only, and some for dual-use, and so forth. The other reason the 88mm gun became so famous is that German land forces were mostly on the defense from the midpoint of the war onwards. And the 88mm gun made a fabulous defensive weapon to cover withdrawing Wehrmacht forces. One which experienced and combat-savvy German generals used to their advantage.
At 2:25, that is the HMS Barham exploding, while the narration is talking about German/Italian shipping being targeted. Kind of a bad mislabeling as element of supporting media.
This is the very first time in years of studying WWII and watching vids but it is the very first time I have ever heard of the Nebelwerfer. This makes me wonder if this was something they came up with after first running into the Red Army's Katyusha in 1941? I know the Germans were stunned at the Katyusha so I wonder if the German staff got to work right then or if this was a weapon they had all along.
No the German "Nebelwerfer" ("Smoke Thrower") was based upon the WWI German Minenwerfer ("Mine Thrower") powerful but comparatively light weight short range howitzers. Similar to the US Army 4.2" "chemical" Mortar, primarily intended to fire Smoke rounds, somebody clever suggested HE rounds too. Nebelwerfers were first fielded in the 1930's. I think they got less attention because during the invasion of France they were used (mostly) for laying smoke. I don't think any were sent to North Africa. Most Nebelwerfers were employed on the Russian Front.
With the British Firefly and their 17 lb'r gun with comparable range and penetration capabilities to the 88 being landed with one in every five or so tanks AND the first occurrence of a Tiger being confronted with just one of them coming up on the losing end..... perhaps the slothful Tigers being present in any numbers would not have been that great a game changer.
Honestly, if this is the worst defeat we suffered at the hands of the Germans, I'll take it. It really wasn't that bad of a defeat, and I'd argue the US troops did better than most green troops did.
We got our azz beat ok got us. But we adapted and overcome as Americans military be doing for 100s of years. Look at the poor bastards in Ukrain. Russia getting beat by refuses to adapt at this point.
One small nation dared to stand up for themselves. It took the rest of the industrialized world to make them heel. But ya “america ended up ‘winning’” in the long run.
My grandfather was captured in this battle then later escaped while digging tank traps for the Germans. He was a Sgt running a 155mm howitzer battery and said US equipment in Kasserine pass was all WW1 surplus, and their howitzers kept falling apart after every shot. The Stukas and 88's we're their nightmares as they had no mobility with the old US guns in this battle. Patton and newer split rail guns (and 50 cal machine guns to fight back at Stukas) made a huge difference. It was hell he said.
IT WAS:
1. AMERICAN LEADERSHIP; FREDENTHAL
2. POOR TRAINING; THE AMERICAN TROOPS WERE OUTCLASSED.
PATTON AND MONTGOMERY LOVE TO BRAG ABOUT HOW THEY BEAT ROMMEL; AT THIS POINT IN THE WAR MY GRANDMOTHER COULD HAVE BEATEN ROMMEL, HE WAS NOT BEING SUPPLIED.
And later it was the other way around when germany couldn't keep up with american production and supplies. My grandfather, who was a 17 years old soldier on the german side, said that they were so poorly equipped that they basically got outdated equipment from the remaining stocks which was more than half a century old.
The good guns went to the higher ranks or more experienced soldiers. If they reached them is a whole other thing since trains, factories and transport vehicles were constantly bombed and attacked at this point in the war.
Logistics and good preparation is everything in war.
The 155 mm was a 1930s vintage artillery piece and the US Military including Marines, Army, Army Air Force as well as the British Army, RAF, and SAS all using relatively new equipment actually with no WWI vintage equipment except sniper rifles and some of the Browning M1917 machine guns although some officers of both sides carried WWI and earlier pistols with the Germans, it was usually a C-96, with the US, it was the Colt M1898 revolver in .45 ACP and the British a Webley
@@joangratzer2101 Rommel was extremely under supplied plus he had a trash ally
Hitler made the mistake of trusting the Italians, Rommels force in Africa was so small it would have never made a difference in Ussr
@@joangratzer2101 Yes, I noticed at the start he credits the Royal air force with Rommel's lack of supplies , The Royal Navy would like a word with Dark Docs ..lol
I'm Tunisian and my grandfather house is in Kasserine.. smt we visit him it's so amazing how world change most of the scenes and places in the video are now homes, streets comercial buildings except the two mountains they are natural parks ... one more thing a German airfield still exciting until today They use it for agricultural purposes next to it there is a German grave yard
Thank you for the description, very interesting. I saw a documentary w/ Tunisian farmers showing war relics in that area.
Thank you for the description!
@@firesail6707 link ?
sbeh nour . Najem na3ref win el Airfield 5oya , To9sed 3le mte Telphet ??
My father fought in north Africa Sicily and Italy. At kasserine ,while the US was in retreat, his column of trucks took the wrong road and had to abandon all their equipment. As he was walking out,he found an American soldier with his face blown off. He carried the soldier on his back to a first aid station. A lot of the baby boomers thought their fathers were cold or seemed detached and distant. If they served in WW2 they,like my father, probably had PTSD. We didn't even know there was such a thing.
My grandfather, Fred Neary, also fought in Italy 🙏
My daddy fought at kasserine pass. His name was william herbert moore..he was in the 68th ba..anybody that can share info on the 68th id be very thankful..He passed away January 3rd 1970 so i have limited information..God bless our troops..
Here is a book published in 1945
Combat History of the 68th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 1st Armored Division in World War II
If your father was in the 68th fa bn.
Often relatives get confused or partial information.
I hope this was helpful.
@@blueliesmatter2 God bless you Blue!
I am a 22 year old. He fought valiantly and I respect our troops of WW2 very very much! Something that a lot of left leaning people do not understand. God bless you Al and your father!
Pitty you are against the police
My grandfather was there as well, in the army air cor... Gregory Thomas langan...
Gen. Fredendal was leading" from the rear and still building his bombproof headquarters many miles to the rear of the fighting forces. He was replaced by Patton and sent back to the US to take up a training assignment. He returned alive while many of his troops were buried on the field of battle.
Yup just not a good leader.
Yes, I also saw "Patton" movie. I thought George C. Scott was magnificent too!
Unfortunately, General Fredenhal's style was taken to the n'th degree in Vietnam. And it stayed there sad to say. General Patton his necktie wearing order notwithstanding was an outstanding General that comes around once ever few lifetimes. We need one now.
Kinda how it works with generals isn't it? Js
That was typical WWI doctrine. Virtually every military ever trains in the war they already fought.
What Gen Fredendal was guilty of was unit discipline and origination.
He's been tossed under the bus rather than blame the troops who learned to fight with broomsticks..
My grandfather was here.
I had an Uncle at the Kasserine Pass. He was shot in the leg and limped the rest of his life. He never said a word about what happened there to anyone for the rest of his life. And he was one tough son of a gun, so it must have been hellishly bad.
Inexperienced troops, no matter how well-trained and prepared for it, have to endure being "blooded" as they called one's baptism of fire in those days. The German Africa Corps was battle-hardened, well-equipped and well-led, so the experience must have been very traumatic and tough for the guys on the receiving end. Their sacrifice wasn't in vain, though, as the student eventually became the master and the U.S. Army eventually emerged victorious after a great deal more of fighting in the Mediterranean and European Theaters. Renowned military historian Rick Atkinson wrote a trilogy about the U.S. Army from North Africa to Italy and the Med and finally into Europe. Well-done books, if you are at all interested. "An Army at Dawn" is the first volume and the one concerned with Operation Torch and North Africa, if memory serves.
Atkinson's thesis, in brief, is that that all armies must tread the hard road of learning war-fighting, and unfortunately the tuition in that particular school is paid in blood. Good leadership can minimize the cost, but it can't be avoided altogether.
Glad your uncle made it home.... my father was a WW2 veteran, though not army, and he rarely spoke of the war years either.
I grew up with Veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. One thing I noticed that if they had experienced the real bad stuff, the stuff that made them drink a lot and have to sleep in separate beds than their wives because they would lash out in their sleep, they had one trait in common; they didn't talk about it. They just didn't. They "might" talk about some of the funny stuff, but not about the carnage or the deaths they saw or caused. The ones I knew rarely went to the VA, or joined the VFW or the American Legion. Many of them had to get away from time to time. They would go fishing or camping and rarely wanted company. More than a few got really drunk out in the woods and come back hungover, a bit grouchy, but calmer. I remember one classmate who said when his father said he needed to go camping, it didn't matter what kind of plans the family had, because that always took president. If his mother was ever upset about this, she never showed it. She just let him go and do whatever he needed to do out there.
@@justinchristoph3725 - Justin, your experience mirrors mine right down to a tee. I am a military historian of long-standing, more years than I like to think quite honestly, and over the decades I've met and spoken with/interviewed hundreds of veterans, including combat vets of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, even one or two WW1 guys (yeah, I'm that old! My grandfather was a Great War veteran), and other conflicts, too. I'm also from a medical family, and am a medic myself.
They called the after-effects of combat "shell shock" in those days, or maybe "battle fatigue," if a guy was hurting enough to seek medical help. What we call PTSD - post-traumatic stress disorder - wasn't really known then as it is now. A lot of those guys who saw such fierce combat had to suck it up and deal with it as best they could, once they got home. The reason so few of them talk about their experiences is that they know they've been through something that a civilian - someone who hasn't been through the same experience - most of the time can't imagine. The reason I was able to get a few of them to open up is that once they saw I knew my subject, and was serious about treating it and them right, SOP not to talk to outsiders would sometimes get waived.
My dad was U.S. Navy during the war, and he seldom spoke about it. The only time might be late at night after he and my mom had entertained company for a bridge game or something, and they'd had a few adult beverages. Sometimes, after my mom had gone to bed, my dad would come hang out with me and we'd play pool and he'd talk about it, or maybe if I was watching something that reminded him of the old days. I think the kamikazes were the worst for guys in the navy near the end of the war. Tell you one thing, my dad sure was happy he didn't have to take part in the amphibious invasion of Japan! Truman took care of that problem.
Another thing I've learned is that the guys who did heroic things during the war and maybe got decorated for it, almost never talk about it or bring it up themselves. It is invariably a relative or something like that, a friend or colleague maybe. Guys talking big and boasting about what they did back in the war is a huge red-flag that someone is not genuine, isn't telling the truth. The guys who were there in the Battle of the Bulge or whatever don't talk about it. And if they say anything, it is that the "real" heroes are the guys who didn't make it home.
@@justinchristoph3725 My grandfather was in the Korean War and he never spoke a word about it. If we wanted to go camping, he would not join us. "Ain't sleeping in no god damn tent!" He died from excessive alcohol abuse.
Sounds like they might have benefitted from talking about it…
Inexperienced troops thrown up against battle-hardened , well armed opponents are always at a massive disadvantage. It's how well they recover , and learn , that makes the difference in future engagements. The yanks did recover , and learn. There is no shame in defeat under such conditions. Brave and selfless , these men were simply overwhelmed.
And Drag Queen Story Hour is the fruit of their victory..
@@frankhassle9366 yeah , Einstein, it's called freedom of speech and freedom of expression, so this is one of those rare times that you GOT IT ✅
@@markhasleton6403 What have you been smoking? People in America regularly get censored and fired from their jobs if they have dissident views and opinions. Trump getting the boot off of Twitter refutes your naive idealism. The veterans of world war two would be shocked and appalled if they could see what became of their "victory" over fascism.😉
Absolutely, but they were inexperienced and not really ready at the start. Which I got mauled for saying above. But yes, kudos to them for learnign so fast. And plenty of generals got relived for not being up to the fight.
@@frankhassle9366 castration too!
In a way Germany's victory at Kasserine Pass was a mixed blessing. It exposed how unprepared and poorly led US forces were, but it also fooled German leadership into believing that Americans would *always* be unprepared. Not a single German offensive after 1943 succeeded against the US. And despite Germany consistently failing to repeat their victory at Kasserine Pass, they still insisted that Americans were weak and inexperienced all the way until America (and Allies ofc) defeated them in 1945.
@RedAUG True, one could say the British also learned by not constantly chasing after the Germans to the point where they would usually end up within range of their Anti Tank guns.
We got a kick in azz. But learning curve and a needed lesson. The British warned us how good the Germans were.
They were not wrong.
@@barryrammer7906 Those "warnings" were just Churchill wanting to bleed the Germans with Soviet troops, if he had his way the western allies never would have done D-Day.
@@atlas4536 yeh I guess after British defeated the Luftwaffe. They were relatively safe from a land invasion. The British were professional soldiers by then compared to USA. It's just true look at Admiral King not wanting British help with the convoy system they developed. A lot of egos. We America's had to adapt and overcome 💯. Lessons learned the hard way.
Just gonna say this here, this place is the best war doc series on the internet. Well written, accurate, and that awesome tone nails it...
Bullshit .
Rommel played to win. With limited men, equipment and supplies against two growing well supplied armies this was his one shot. British troops got sucked in but gave the American troops the time they needed. Africa always was just a proving ground for the US High Command. They learned what they needed from the defeat to make D-Day work. They found what the leaders, the men and equipment could and couldn't do against the Germans.
Also because of this battle, Germany weakened its efforts on the Eastern Front, which kept the Russians in the war. They had been threatening to make a deal with Germany if something wasn't done soon. They actually wanted a direct invasion of Europe. This stage of the Africa campaign kinda showed how well that would have turned out. It seems likely that Russia would have done a deal, and the US would have prioritized Japan and just helped Britain build up its defenses.
Are you for real? The reason the Germans lost was the Germans. They had one season to subdue Soviet Russia, and 1 year overall to tie up loose ends or they're kaput. Their own energy ministry knew this before Barbarossa kicked off. If they didn't get a second source beyond Romania to meet their energy needs , they were gonna flounder. And they did.
They should've went for Baku and the Caspian before Moscow and stuck with it first.even if the Russians managed to fence off the rest of Russia, had the Germans gained a secured and working source of oil from the Baku and Grozny area alone, they'd have the resources they need to keep up the pace and we'd all be reading about how the gallant and brave Aryan forces crushed the evil and corrupt playboy governments of the US and UK were crushed and it's citizens "freed" before feeding them into the ovens :P
Damn, would have been an interesting version of the war with the societal of the game
Would be interesting to see an alternative history video based on this.
Dude Russia was never going to make a deal with Germany. Cracks me up how people just start making up stuff Lol. I have followed WW2 for years and never heard from anywhere Russia was close to just striking a deal. Russia already struck a deal in which Hitler broke...Russia wasn't going to trust Germany again. The Russians were pissed and understood it would have been annihilation for their people under any kind of deal or surrender. I never even heard Germany offered a deal once they started fighting. Stop making up history.
The Red Army accounted for 76% of German casualties in WW2. Some deal . Of course the West helped them but it is very wrong to try to rewrite history and take the credit for their tremendous achievements.
This was wonderful. I would have liked more details on exactly what played out tactically.
Kasserine Pass was the grim cauldron of battle that the Americans learned the hard way which they never forgot.
Many thanks must go to our allies. My grandfather who fought in WWII would say "You can't win a war if you're stupid. One must be willing to learn, especially from one's mistakes."
Did you tell him "Thanks Captain Obvious for your wise wisdom"?
Did he smoke any Nazis?
😹😹😹🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks to our allies but France. Fuck France.
@@stomper2888 yes. Then he said there will always be dipshits like you that will never know what courage is. I simply think you're too stupid to understand... Anyway, continue to play your COD, pretending to know what sacrifice truly is.
Amazing video, as usual! That said, I still feel Rommel was the best field commander of the war. He never had the supplies and backup he needed and though eventually overwhelmed, he was able to strike violently and effectively until his support eroded in the end. He did his best even though he knew it was an impossible task. His reward - we all knew that!
When Britain sent some young lads to infiltrate & assassinate Rommel, they failed. The final one to die was a young guy, I believe 18 or 19yrs old.
Rommel wrote his mother a letter, had him shown full military honours, and made arrangements for the body to be flown back to England to be buried.
Extremely clever commander, and indeed a good leader.
He was a fantastic self publicist. Germany had better commanders than most of the allies. He was just one of them. There's a lot to be said for the opinion, that Hitler would have done a awful lot better if he'd just listened to them. Might have even won.!
What great things did Rommel accomplish? He managed to LOSE (or at best draw) every major battle in Africa, with the one exception of Gazala, when he'd been given the complete Allied OOB and battle plans by Bonner Fellers through Ultra intercepts. Rommel's days of triumph in North Africa lasted just 17 - not 17 months, not 17 weeks, just 17 DAYS! (from June 13th to 29th 1942 to be exact)
@@Free-Bodge79 Won, no. There were two things that sealed it, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour. After that the writing was on the wall. Hte one thing I think everyone still agrees on, when debating that history, is that yes Hitler just interfered where he shouldn't have. Right from the start with Dunkirk and all the way to the end when he should have let them withdraw from Stalingrad. You want to be a politician be one but that doesn't make you a general. Otherwise be a general and afterwards run for office but the days of warrior kings ended along time ago. Especially if you are really useless at it. Rommel on the other hand is really difficult to judge. He flew to Berlin asking for fuel for his tanks and got a medal instead. As ineffective as he was on D-day he did judge is right before hand and I think had he had more Tigers to put closer to the beaches they might have staved it off beter. However he lost to Montgomery and some American generals didn't think too highly of Montgomery. Honestly, who know?
He was also a Nazi and did commit atrocities. He is not a person to look up to and was involved in war crimes.
WOW!!
What a Fascinating and Impressive video!! Thx again!!
The late Colin Powell, 4 Star Gen., former Army Chief of Staff, and Sec. of State, characterized the US Army's experience in North Africa as: "War on training wheels".
Ain't that the truth. To be fair, you don't know how to fight in a war unless you've fought in a war. The Brits had had years of experience. I doubt they or the French fought much better in 1940, and going against Rommel is totally baptism by fire.
Absolutely! North Africa was a whetting stone for the Allies. This was the first time the Americans & British fought together, learning the choreography of dance partners.
COLIN POWELL LIED ON THE FLOOR OF THE U.N. HE TELLS GEORGE TENNANT, "IF I HAVE TO LIE, YOU HAVE TO SIT BEHIND ME." THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR A GREAT MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS BECAUSE OF A LIE. THAT'S A WAR CRIME.
Yes, well, he was a silly anthropoid. Better for him if he'd stayed in his tree
Powell was a Liberal Token General, who supported OBAMA ! He wasn't very effective, a Friend of mine who was a Two Star knew him & also didn't think much for Him ! 💀
My dad was there and spent the next 27 months as a POW. He said there big guns already had 2000 rounds on them when they got there. His name was Worth Columbus Hampton.
My dad never said much about his Army days in WWII, he did mention being at Kasserin pass.
🏆🏆🏆👍🇺🇲🙏
Thank you for sharing .
My grandfather missed that battle. He was in the hospital. The unit involved is the Big Red 1.
A friends Dad who I also spent time Hunting Mule Deer and Elk in Colorado with said He had completed training and had just seen the Movie Sgt York when they learned of Pearl Harbor. He was with a heavy machine gun section atop a high hill at Kasserine Pass. The Germans located American armor by firing machine guns and taking note of deflecting bullets . They then used heavier weapons to knock out the Armor and hidden anti tank guns. Men detailed to watch over jeeps , halftracks etc. hidden below came up warning everyone to get away as best they could as the Germans were everywhere. The destroyed their weapons , casting parts away into the brush and went down to see if they could get their vehicles. The found the Germans trying out their captured vehicles and set out to escape. Walking below a elevated roadway at night in plain view of the Germans who were relaxing and talking. He said at night the German’s most likely mistook them for their own troops. He and some other Men crossed under the roadway at a dry wash and made their way out into the open Desert. The next day they were picked up by a American Half track searching for straggler’s. Because He grew up Speaking both English and Italian (His Parents were both Italian immigrants as were My Dads) He became a guard for Italian Prisoner’s of war.
One of the biggest issues at Kasserine was total incompetence of the US commander, Lloyd Fredendahl,nit even mentioned in this video.
I disagree. The failure of Allied forces at Kasserine Pass was because of a mixture of non-interacting cultures. Mixing culturally different, different language units, all poorly armed (a large amount of WWI equipent0, and then the mixture of commanders of different language cultures = that's the failure prone condition. The British propaganda effort to blame their American allies for incompetence, to heighten the British egos, has stuck.
Fun fact, the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, was also the unit with the highest casualties during the Iraq War. You can read about it in a book called "They Fought For Each Other" by Kelly Kennedy. The curse of Kasserine Pass is real.
My grandfather was with the 26th at Kasserine. Captured after they ran out of ammo delaying the Germans. Spent 30 months as a POW
Nothing fun about it!!!
My dad (26th Regiment, 1st Infantry Division), John George Beckett, was awarded the Silver Star at Kasserine Pass.
The narrator left out a key component of the Americans' resiliency--Gen Patton. “Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!” Vets from that time period have testified they wouldn't be alive if it weren't for Gen Patton.
Patton's casualty rates were appalling.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Better than being dead.
Another great video and commentary!
Rommel's supply problems were not all caused by air bombing. The majority of the work was done by the Royal Commonwealth navies, with the US Navy also contributing significantly to the action. A hell of a lot was achieved by the motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats, PT boats and submarines of the Allies.
...the single biggest mistake the Germans made, of the entire North African campaigns was failing to capture Malta. It was from Malta the British could easily strike at the German/Italian convoys. But Hitler could not make up his mind to order that attack, since he knew he could not count on the Italians, even though their support was crucial to the success of such an operation.
Training & experience are essential for an army, logically the US' army lacked both at the start, luckyly a LOT of officers and NCO started to learn, often in the hardest way, how to fight and WIN, a modern war. A similar situation happened at the start of the Korean war, when a lot of WWII 's veterans had to be recalled in service to train the recruits, also if this was more due to a criminal incompetence of politicians that tought that the A bomb would've been the definitive weapon, making an army obsolete (naturally they were WRONG!).
The Americans were certainly trained. And well-drilled. The problem, I think, at Kasserine was that what they were trained to do during peacetime, stateside, wasn't effective in reality. Perhaps reality should be a molding of training modified by the lessons of experience?
It has to said that the mental state of the soldiers is quite important, my grandfather died 2006 at the age of 97, he was an Austrian soldier fighting in the Wehrmacht at that time under Erwin Rommel's command, he was said, in the Wehrmacht and SS especially was a mindset present:"You win or you rather die". They fought any battle against any probability to win, with the mindset, that failure is not an option. At that time, Rommel did not had a lot of Panzers/Artillery pieces or Airplanes, but the best trained soldiers in the world plus the handicap of having the Italian forces around, that were poorly equipt and trained.
Thoroughly enjoyed your video clip of the battle of the Kasserine Pass. . I did notice a lot of the clip featured the British Eighth Army. Their pith helmets and uniforms plus the Lee Enfield.303 was evident in alot of the clip. I didn't mind watching that. As my late Father served in the British Eighth Army from. 1939 to 1946. Length of the war plus 6 months. He rarely spoke of the war except when I found old black and white photos of him by the pyramids in Eygyt. I was hoping to see more of the American Soldiers in combat. As I thought the Eighth Army was not involved directly in this particular battle. I thought it was the Americans first real contact with the Desert Fox Rommel and the Africa Korps. Hence alot of the video showed Eighth Army soldiers? Was that due to a lack of film of the American Soldiers during the engagement? Still i enjoyed the short video. Great work as per usual. May those who lost their lives rest in peace also. 💪🏼🙏🏻✌🏻
The opening shot of a sailor using his binos was of an RN Matelot with his rigid flat top white Port & Starboard cap with Ship's "tally"
My dad was one of the tank busters here. After this disaster, the army decided to deactivate the tank destroyer units, and dad ended up joining an infantry division as a radio operator.
Tank Destroyer battalions were used throughout the war. The last TD battalion was de-activated in 1946.
This brings back memories from COD 2. The african campaign missions were my favorite levels from the game.
LOL
Yes...how battle-hardened you are by your past, virtual war experiences...
@@garesonc9672 That was not what I meant. Yes I know the game was not exactly like the actual battle from WW2 but the video for some reason gave me a nostalgic feeling.
This is without doubt the best youtube channel out there .
not even close lol.
@@240pixel says he with 283 subscribers
@@cromwell13649 am I claiming to be the best youtube channel? no.
@Garry Arden Dr Mark Felton, The Chieftain and Forgotten Weapons are way more factual subject matter experts then this guy who does quantity over quality for his many channels. I am not saying he's the worst but sure as hell far from best.
The best ww2 channel on here is easily World War 2. Quality and quantity that is matched by no one on UA-cam
A much needed learning curve for our American forces that really didn't understand battle at the time. If the world can learn that using their military to take from another Country, it will be a much better place! Free men fight because they know freedom and don't want to lose it, will the Putin's and upcoming Chinese ever learn this!?
The US armor was under equipped. They had no air support. They did a defense in depth and tactical withdraw.
*The bravery and skill of the German soldier in combat was breathtaking to behold, demonstrating their superiority in every way. Soldier for soldier, no other army could match them. Only by the allies ganging up on them 10 to 1, could they finally be defeated.* 🌴🌴
By the time the Allies could react efficiently, the Germans had spent almost 7 years preparing for the war that only they were sure would come. They had researched and developed the most modern armaments, from tanks, to machine guns, to anti aircraft guns, to grenades. They built advanced, quality equipment, and had developed and trained an equally advanced army. They had innovative thinkers, but knew they would be outnumbered. They used that innovative thinking to develop the Blitzkrieg, moving lightning fast, against a Europe that was ill prepared militarily and psychologically to fight in another war. They then had the gift of time, to entrench themselves in strategic locations, after occupying most of Europe in a few short months, that would make it extremely difficult to retake, as the beaches of Normandy can attest. So, were they brave and skilled? Most assuredly. And, at the time, no other army could match them, because no other army had prepared for seven years to go to war. They were the professionals, up against the amateurs. And, the army was able to move lightning fast across Europe and into France, in part, because they were supplied with methamphetamines, by the millions, which allowed them to fight with little food or rest. Ganging up on them has the negative connotation of a big guy, picking on a small guy. That phrase can be used correctly when discussing Germany hanging up on Poland, or Norway, or Denmark or Holland and Belgium. The Germans planned across the board to put themselves in the drivers seat, while everybody else twiddled their thumbs. But, when the world, the USA and Great Britain in Europe, finally did catch up, I’d put Patton and his troops up against any Wehrmacht forces, any day. In fact, he won the battle of North Africa against Rommel, he won in Sicily, and he won against the Germans in Europe, driving them back to the borders of their country. The Germans were a great fighting force, no doubt. Their advances in armaments and strategy were indeed breathtaking to behold, as witnessed by their control of Europe for almost four years. But, they allowed themselves a huge advantage from the start, of surprise and military advancement that had no comparison. They are a remarkable people as witness their recovery after WW II. From a vanquished, destroyed country, they have risen to become a world financial power house, reunited with East Germany, and thriving while even absorbing that population. But, superior in every way, soldier for soldier?
@Abcde I would not presume to ask how you drew that conclusion. The Treaty of Versailles, after WW I, set the stage for WW II, when it attempted to drive Germany into the ground with its reparations, and other sanctions, which drove Germany into an economic nose dive. The driver of this plan was the French, who had suffered more than the British because the war was fought on their land, not England’s. As a result, Germany suffered a catastrophic economic collapse, from which they could not seem to recover. The Germans violated every tenet of the Versailles Treaty, without a word from France or England, as they built up their army. Poland??? Poland sat like an apple ripe for the taking. An antiquated army, still riding horses, was no match for the German blitzkrieg. The Germans had secretly agreed to let Russia take the eastern part of Poland, while they took the west. The Russians had no great love for Poland historically, and overran all of Poland as WW II came to an end. Poor Poland had nothing whatsoever to do with starting the war, but their flyers did escape to England, where they actually taught the British fliers new techniques which helped them win the Battle of Britain. The Poles also escaped with information on how to decode the German Enigma machine, which they took to Bletchley Park and was used to break the German code. And, you think the Poles, sitting ducks for both the Russians and Germans, had something to do with started the war which divided their country? Historians have examined the causes of WW II up one end and down the other, and I have never heard mention of the Poles having anything, whatsoever to do with the starting of WW II. The French drove the harsh penalties inflicted on the Germans, and the British went along with it. Those penalties, including the huge reparations, drove Germany to become open to anyone who would move them back from the abyss, and that was Hitler. So, the Treaty of Versailles was the catalyst for pushing Germany into the dire situation it found itself in after WW I. In fact, the reparations were so crushing that Germany toon the better part of 90 years to finish paying it off, in 2010. And the cause of the war, was Germany’s aggressive military plan, to subjugate the countries to their east, making them the breadbasket for Germany, and their intentional plan to annihilate those who were considered inferior. Their definition of inferior grew to include many who weren’t Jewish, as in Poland, where they killed about 1.5 million people, the leaders and intelligentsia of the country, in an attempt to destroy Poland’s culture. So, who was responsible for WW II? Certainly not Poland, and with almost complete certainty, Germany, on its own, even with the financial circumstances after WW I. They are the ones, and they alone, who decided that financial recovery would take the path of military conquest, instilling fear and horror across all of Europe, and every country which they invaded, including Russia.
@Abcde So your thinking is that because the German population in Poland was portrayed by the Germans as being badly treated, that the Germans were pushed into invading Poland in order to protect them? The Germans had already annexed Austria, and the Sudetenland, for the same reason, and that had alarmed the world, especially France and England, simply because the Germans had no right to do so. They INVADED those two countries and the world drew a line in the sand, don’t go near Poland. If we follow the German logic, then anywhere they determine there is a German population that they feel is being badly treated they can invade and take it over. The civilized world doesn’t work that way, and didn’t then. As for England somehow persuading Poland to behave in a way that would provoke war, The Poles knew they weren’t prepared for war, and always feared Russia too, on the Eastern border. The Germans wanted war. They invaded sovereign countries knowing what would happen. There was never anything altruistic or benevolent about the Germans. They had a plan and no one pushed them into anything. They decided to cause havoc and mayhem and murder about 10,000,000 people they felt were inferior to them. In 1933, Hitler took over. His vision was to have Germany control Europe, and beyond, most especially the oil fields of the Middle East, and use the countries of the east, like Poland, as an agricultural area. That vision was Germany’s vision in 1933 and England didn’t know anything about it, nor did the rest of the world. The Germans were complicit in starting WW I, and almost solely responsible for starting WW II.
@Abcde War is never simple, and motives are sometimes cloudy, at the time, by skewed viewpoints or propaganda. But, now, nearly 80 years later, the perspective is clearer, and historians have examined documentary evidence of how the war unfolded. After 80 years, they might have an agenda, but it is more likely in the ensuing years, that the truth might be revealed. Here are a few of them. Rearmament and expansion were the two key elements of the Nazi regime. That is fact. They had to do this without alarming the countries that might react, France, Great Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia, before they were ready to put their plan in action. So, they set about convincing the German people and the world that they were, in fact, victims. Victims of the Treaty of Versailles, victims of the Jews, victims of the French and British, always victims. Their propaganda was designed to do just this. Nazi propagandists disguised military aggression, aimed at territorial conquest, as righteous, and necessary acts of self-defense, trying to make their aggression morally acceptable. They cast Germany continually as victims, or potential victims, of foreign aggressors, and as a peace loving nation. This hid their true intentions of territorial and racial warfare. And, we can accept that because this was exactly what happened, they invaded countries and murdered more than 12 million people. It was all designed to misdirect the people of Germany, and the rest of the world. To present the coming invasion of Poland as morally defensible, the press played up “Polish atrocities” referring to real and alleged discrimination and physical violence directed at ethnic Germans within Poland. In fact, Poles turned on Germans after the Germans invaded Poland, and killed approximately 5,000 to 6,000. Germans claimed the number was 60,000. Again, propaganda at its finest. To promote this fraud, SS men, dressed in Polish Army uniforms, attacked a German radio station at Gleiwitz. The next day Hitler announced to Germany and the world his decision to send troops into Poland in response to Polish aggression. Again, Germany was portrayed as the victim. And, now the responsibility for declaring war would be on France and Great Britain. Examining the repercussions of the German invasion of Poland on the Polish people, will show the Polish culture decimated, more than 1.5 million Poles killed, including the highly educated, intelligentsia, doctors, professors, and teachers. And, this was done to save those ethnic Germans who were being persecuted by the Poles? You simply can’t believe that, given this horrendous outcome. And, that does not include the millions of Polish Jews also murdered. WW II a pulled the world out of the Great Depression, so you might say that capitalists pushed the idea of war forward to fulfill that goal. You might take a lot of perspectives and turn them to fit your agenda about who caused the war. But, there is no denying that Germany was, in fact, at the heart of the start of aggression, had a military plan in effect for eight years before the war started, and that no one was invading Germany, but Germany was, indeed, invading and destroying many other countries.
@Abcde For the moment, let’s assume it is true that the Poles did attack the Germans, in Poland. Can you not see, at this point in time, that the Germans were in a position, militarily, not to care one darn bit about the impact of the Poles attacking the Germans? It didn’t matter one iota. It’s only importance was as a propaganda tool, and the Germans used those attacks as a reason for invasion. Consider that it took the Germans a mere 35 days to conquer all of Poland. It was hardly a fight. Who would you say was actually prepared for a war, the Germans or the Poles? And, the Germans and the Poles both knew this. So, whether the Poles killed Germans in Poland, or the Poles didn’t kill Germans in Poland, became irrelevant to the Germans. They used the existing bad feelings that existed between the Germans and Poles within Poland, to invade and almost annihilate the entire Polish culture. You think that this can be justified by the Germans who were persecuted within Poland??? More than likely, the carving up of German territory at the end of WW I was the reason for Germany invading Poland. You see, Poland was given the port of Danzig, including a corridor running right through Germany. Of course, it included many German citizens, who were now living in Polish territory. That was the reason there were many Germans living in Poland in the first place. And, the hatred for Poland within Germany, went so far, that they agreed to let the Russians have the eastern half of Poland, while they took back the western half, including Danzig. We are again seeing the Germans remedy the terms of the Versailles Treaty, by force, if necessary. But, Germany still needed to convince its people that war was necessary. They had just been through WW I and had lost 2 million soldiers. These fathers, brothers, uncles, were still vivid memories. So, they searched for the stories that would rouse their people to action, like the sinking of the Lusitania was to America, or Pearl Harbor in WW II. No more discussion about defending your country. Someone attacked you, so the response is automatic. That’s what Germany needed and that’s what they got, either real or perpetrated. Just look at the end result to witness the gross inequity of the forces involved. The Poles were severely ill prepared for war, as most of Europe was. Yet, they would provoke their neighbor, Germany, to the point of war by attacking Germans? No. Germany wanted the port of Danzig back. Germany had been preparing for war for 8 years, while the rest of Europe slept. They did this in secret, knowing the war machine they were producing would be used just as it was, to overrun Europe, gain territory and rid the world of inferior people. There is no secret now about that. Were there many reasons for the start of WW II? Yes, of course. But, without the German plans to conquer the world, it just doesn’t happen. That the Germans were the catalyst and driver of the aggression has never been the question. Hitler was determined, by any means, to invade Poland. He would have made that happen using real or imagined situations. Notice that after annexing Austria, the easiest, and the Sudetenland, the next easiest, he chose Poland to invade. 35 days and done. He knew that Poland’s ties to England and France would draw them into a war. But by then, he was emboldened by their lack of response, and, indeed, he was correct. You seem to be defending Germany and it’s role in causing one of the most catastrophic events in history. WW II a is a very complex story. But, in all that complexity, no where is Germany’s role in its causes diminished in any way. Can their reasons be justified? In some minds, I guess that answer would be yes, but not for the rest of the world. Europe was in rubble, including Germany, which the rest of the world felt was justified. Twenty million people were dead, including millions of kids. Justified by Poland’s treatment of the Germans within their borders? In retrospect, most people would say no.
Another awesome video! Thank you.
It fails to mention that Rommel had to share command with Von Arnim who commanded the 10th Pz Div and that Arnim hesitated when total victory was in sight.
Arnim hated Rommel. He wouldn't give him any tigers.
Hitler had everything to win a war in europe but the fact he had to fight on 3 fronts made it impossible. He made so many mistakes from early on and everytime someone warned him and said he shouldn't do it.
I knew other old timer’s who fought in North Africa and up through Italy. One had fought the French and sent a French Rifle Home as a souvenir . Somewhere in transit it was stolen. He did show Me a beautiful early model K-98 rifle that was not stolen in route. My Uncle who was a water cooled 30 cal machine Gunner who came to the 34th as a replacement at the end of North Africa said that they often were trucked to the front where they were told to leave their packs that were then raided by truck driver’s for souvenirs. There were heated arguments over taking from the dead both German and our own. There were those who reasoned that the dead no longer had use for watches , lighter’s jewelry , rings etc. My first generation American Uncles of Italian ancestry were patriotic Americans who Found their German Enemies to really be little different from themselves. Place of birth determined who’s side one fought on. I met a German Immigrant who Grew up under Hitler who’s Son became a fighter Pilot in the United States Navy. A friends Dad had been one of the Swimmer’s in the North African port seizure operation. He later sold used books in San Francisco. I knew a old carpenter who was in North Africa. He said that when the Germans opened up with those 88’s guys would shit their pants , run blindly off cliffs or impale themselves on tree branches in the dark. After being wounded there He repaired damaged landing craft in the Pacific. He was also of Italian ancestry and complained that Roosevelt sent a lot of Italian’s to Africa to test their loyalty to the US. My Dad was the youngest of five boys , six older and one younger sister. His Dad , My Grandfather was a decorated veteran of Adwa. Barely escaped with His life from that one in 1896 at about 18 years old.
Interesting Story...my grandfather (Born 1925) fought in the Wehrmacht in italy from 1944 on and During the Retreat to north, got captured by the british in carinthia, near the Southern Border of Austria today. (luckily before getting captured by Partisans)..He told me, the british troops treated Them quite fair, He Had to Cut woodlogs and trees in the surrounding Woods. He was sent Home in 1946, graduated as a teacher and married grandmother...and now, 80 years Later, we are commenting on youtube..it's a crazy world...
It is the first time in my 50 years that someone fully explained the battle of kasserine to me. With the background and complete environment, Thank you very much and greetings from Patagonia Argentina
American military from Torch went to invade Sicily & Southern Italy in the Rome campaign.
My uncle (for whom I'm named) was in the 34th Red Bull division & was awarded a Silver Star in Tunisia. He was KIA near Mt. Pantano near Monte Casino, Italy and is buried in the American military cemetery in Nettuno, Italy near Anzio.
Thanks for sharing your family history.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Probably the worst campaign of the entire war. The problem was a guy named Kesselring, and an idiot called Mark Clark.
Another Good One. Thanks.
I believe the decision to hold North Africa is a less talked abt turning point for the Allies,as it later proved vital for all the amphibious landings the Allies would later use to side line the germean defenses of Italy had they withdrawn timely from Tunisia and brought the main force to Sicily and mainland Italy the war would have been different
The German high command called the North African campaign a sideshow as the main war effort was in the East. That was ultimately where they lost the war. Although the experience the Allies gained in Africa was important it had little impact on the ultimate defeat of Germany. Americas great achievement of WW2 was to be able to avoid a lot of the hardships faced by other nations, particularly the Soviet Union and the UK, but be part of the victorious group at wars end.
If FDR had not propped up Britain from 1939 Hitler would not have declared war on the USA, how does that work out for UK and USSR?
1941 December 170 M3 light tanks in North Africa, 108 in the Philippines. Escort carrier HMS Audacity (Hannover when captured in the US "Neutrality" Zone) lost with four F4 Wildcats.
1942 June Brewster Buffalos made up 3/4 of the fighters on Midway Island.
The Anglo-French-American alliance was and is awesome.
The French really didn't contribute much except confusion and obstruction.
France helped George Washington's Revolutionary Army defeat the British Empire to win American Independence.
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
The American contribution in WW2 was indeed remarkable. It was the only power that could fully supply two huge theaters of war, plus re-supply the western allies and put supplies into Russia. However, the combat contribution of the US was not in its GI's. It was in logistics and fire power - specifically, getting the ammo to the guns, and air power. Politicaly, American leaders knew their voters would not accept huge numbers of casualties for countries that had fought wars for centuries. But they would work lots of overtime building the machinery that would defeat the enemy.
Inversely, the Russians knew that it would take lives and space to have time to build the forces needed to stop and defeat Germany. Too many historians overlook the fact that Germany suffered heavy losses in the initial invasion of Russia even though the Russian army almost collapsed. The Germans were in fact shocked when they first encountered the T-34 tank, which they didn't even know existed. Anothrer fact is that 4 out of every 5 Germans killed in WW2 were killed by Russian arms - not American, British, Canadian, or French. The Americans lost 27,000 in the Battle of Normady, which lasted a month. The Russian lost that many in the first week of the Battle of Stalingrad, which went on for two months. They lost 88,000 men in the Battle for Berlin. Between Stalingrad in 1942 and Berlin in 1945, the Russians lost 12 million soldiers out of a totall war loss of about 22 million, the Germans 8 million.
By contrast, the US KIA in all of WW2 were 404,000. The largest battle in US histoty was the Heurtegen Forest wherein the Americans suffered 72,000 casualtis. By percentage of population, Poland suffered the worst in the west - China by far, in the east with about 30 to 45 million from 1933 to 1945. Millions more from 1945 to 1967 due to the Communists purging the country.
I used to be gung ho "Murica!" all the way, until I realized what these figures mean to other countries. We are not the center of the universe.
For a chilling view of the casualties of WW2, I suggest the UA-cam video, "The Fallen of WW2" Mindboggling.
Well said.
Recognize that it was an alliance of United Nations that defeated the Axis Powers. No single nation could have faced them and come out on top. Everyone spilt blood to see fascism destroyed.
As General George S. Patton Jr. said, "You Don't Win Wars By DYING For Your Country. You WIN Wars By Making The Enemy DIE For Their Country!"
25,000,000 + subjects of the Soviet Empire dying during their war against Germany 1941 to 1945 is a tragedy. One Third (33%) of the trucks used by the Soviet Union were made in the USA. Some also were manufactured in Canada or the UK. 20,000 + M4 "Sherman" tanks, mostly the diesel engine versions and a similar number of US aircraft were provided to the USSR, as were Vital strategic minerals and other essentials without which the USSR could not have produced as many of their own weapons.
If the USSR had sued for a separate peace, the USA, UK, Commonwealth, and our Allies could have liberated Western Europe, and probably even defeated Nazi Germany.
(Western) Allied Airpower was overwhelming! The vast majority of the Luftwaffe was committed to fighting them, and were destroyed.
The pipe dream of Strategic Bombing would have to be given up. Most of the Heavy Bombers would have been committed to destroying the rail yards railroads, bridges, and other logistics. Medium bombers targeting Enemy Airfields and logistics. A "Bonus" would be that Allied Fighter planes could accompany our bombers all the way.
No matter how skilled the soldiers, without fuel, ammo, food, spare parts and other logistics, they would be defeated in detail.
As in North Africa, Italy, Moritain in France, or the Battle of the Bulge, Allied Airpower would savage any significant German attacks or counter-attacks!
The war would have taken longer, at least into 1946 or even 1947. Allied, primarily US attacks would have to be more deliberate. It is unlikely that the Germans would have retreated from France in August 1944.
On the other hand the Allies would have the time to build up their logistics. By 1946 I would be willing to put 10,000 new M26 Pershing tanks vs. a couple hundred Jagdtigers (that would mostly be destroyed by rocket firing P47s and Typhoons) Gloster Meteors and US turbo-jets vs. ME262s.
Re: "The American contribution in WW2 was indeed remarkable. It was the only power that could fully supply two huge theaters of war, plus re-supply the western allies and put supplies into Russia. However, the combat contribution of the US was not in its GI's. It was in logistics and fire power - specifically, getting the ammo to the guns, and air power."
That's an oversimplification, and then some. You are correct that without the " Arsenal of Democracy," the U.S. had fifty percent of the world's industrial output by 1945 - the allied war effort would have been in dire straits. "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics" is a time-honored military aphorism and for good reason. However, you slight the sacrifice of the Americans KIA, WIA and MIA in that war. Here's why...
The casualties suffered by the USSR, to use one example, were enormous. However, they must placed in the proper historical context. Josef Stalin was a brutal dictator whose record of murdering his own countrymen makes him one of history's worst and most-blood thirsty tyrants. He and the rest of the party leaders were not responsible to the Russian people for the slaughter which took place on their watch. They held elections in Stalin's USSR, but they didn't mean anything. Stalin left power only upon dying, which happened in 1953.
Stalin, who was probably an actual sociopath, fed his countrymen into the meat grinder without remorse and without compassion. Is it any wonder that they suffered so horribly? And even absent his malice and ruthlessness, Stalin's ineptitude in purging the Red Army on the eve of the war condemned millions of his countrymen to death during the early months and years of the war.
Western leaders, including Churchill in the U.K. and Roosevelt in the U.S., had to wage war just like their Soviet counterpart, but all the while staying mindful of public opinion and morale. British morale had been crushed in the trenches of Flanders in WWI. throughout the war, Churchill was gripped with the fear that WW2 would see a repeat of that bloodbath. That's one big reason he argued so hard for attacking Fortress Europa (occupied Europe) via the "soft underbelly" of through the south and the Balkans. His concern over the British Empire was another factor, to be sure, but fear of huge casualties was the big one. In order to wage the war, the PM had to remain in office, and if the British public hounded him from 10 Downing Street, that would not have been possible.
Anti-war sentiment was widespread in the U.S. between the wars, and even once Pearl Harbor had been attacked, many Americans favored letting the Europeans bleed each other dry while the U.S.dealt with Japan. FDR's problem was that the U.S. was pathetically ill-prepared to fight a war in 1939, at least in many respects (not all, but that's another topic).
Even if the U.S. had wanted to wage a land war on the scale of the USSR, it was not prepared to do so, not even remotely, since they not only needed a huge, modern army but a means of transporting it to the battlefield halfway around the world.
There were people in the U.S. calling for an invasion of the European mainland in early 1943, but I've always wondered what they were smoking/drinking, because that was literally a pipe-dream. We could barely scrape together enough of a landing force to invade Guadalcanal in August 1942 in the Pacific and mount Operation Torch in November 1942, the invasion of North Africa.
The American losses in WW2 were comparative low not because U.S. troops lack fighting spirit, skill or bravery, but because almost alone among the major participants her homeland escaped destruction. Apart from Hawaii and Alaska, which were both territories, and U.S. possessions in the Pacific, the war was not fought on U.S. soil.
The Greeks, Poles, and Chinese suffered disproportionate casualties during the war, as calculated on a per-capita basis - in addition to the Russians.
Thank you!
At 9:10 Rommel basically says to US forces: "Welcome to WW2."
DARK DOCS!!!....
I LOVE YOUR DARK CHANNELS! I THINK I HAVE THEM ALL NOW, & WATCH THE RITUALLY NOW!!!!
DARK 5 GOT ME STARTED, & I'VE BEEN WITH YOU SINCE YOU STARTED YOUR OTHER DARK CHANNELS! LOVE THE NARRATION, VIDEOS ARE WELL DONE, & APPRECIATE THE ACCURACY & EFFORT Y'ALL PUT INTO IT!!!
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK YOU DO!!👍
Something Rommel did earlier screwed up the Germans taking Malta. And it was precisely because the Brits could retain Malta that they were so successful in screwing up Rommel getting those extra supplies later on.
Adjust, adapt, and OVERCOME!!!
I for one would appreciate additional information re: the American troops "willingness to learn" and subsequent victories after their defeat at Kasserine Pass. Great vid though!
A great book is “The US Army in Europe 1943-1945”. A great example would be how unprepared the Army was for the hedgerows in Southern France. Enlisted troops created rhino tanks by welding scrap metal to Sherman tanks and cutting through the obstacles which were tenaciously defended by German troops.
For that incredible story I highly recommend Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy.
Thank you
As I recall, the scratch British force actually contributed heavily to the defence of the front with multiple infantry and armoured units, but your video sort of makes it out as though they didn’t do much beyond getting sucked in. Other than that it’s very good.
The British had been fighting the Germans for two years before the US entered the war. And during those two years the US made bank.
@@ReaderOfThreads Britain is this reason this war happened to begin with
@@destroyerarmor2846 don’t be that guy. The guy that’s wrong. Britain hated the treaty of Versailles. If you mean not attacking Germany sooner, we’ll, don’t see anyone else taking that step either.
@@destroyerarmor2846 horrible take, expected nothing better from a meathead like you.
@@destroyerarmor2846 shilling for Hitler, eh?
My grandfather fought in kasserine and was later redirected alongside Rommel to Normandy and north france
I remember hearing of starving German soldiers of the 6th army rushing to the planes that made it and one was full of black pepper and another plane full contraceptives must have been horrible being surrounded and forbade to break out
Love all these channels but this one most
Rommel, tremendous general, a real cunning desert fox ! Had he had the overwhelming supplies the Allies had, he would have conquered the whole of North Africa. His Afrika Korps (troops and Panzers) were something to contend with...tough, brave, experienced soldiers backed by first-class tanks like the Tiger...They deserved a better outcome for their efforts.
Not true. The Afrikkorps had no Tiger tanks. All of the Tigers in Africa belonged to Panzerarmee 5.
A company of Tigers collaborated with the Afrikakorps at the Sidi bou Zid battle, but there were none in the Kasserine Pass battle.
@@daveybyrden3936 - Read my comment again. I didn't say the DAK had Tigers, I said the German Army in Africa commanded by Rommel did have some Tigers.
@@rainbowseeker5930 That's not true either. Rommel never commanded Tigers in Africa. When he wanted them for the Kasserine Pass, he had to ask for them, and he didn't get them. Von Arnim wasn't interested.
Rommel was nominally in charge of everything for his last few days in Africa, but he was too busy at the Mareth line to do anything with Panzerarmee 5. So Von Arnim launched an offensive without Rommel's permission. Once again, Rommel was not commanding the Tigers.
There were also US NAVY frogmen assigned there with the Engrs..My grandpa was one of em, He was first deployed at the battle of Marocco Bay and fought in the entire N Africa campaign..I have a picture of him and his buddies in a gun emplacement also he took lots of pictures in Algieria and even got a long shot of Gen.Patton on his Sherman tank..
Kesserine foi apenas o momento final de uma série de batalhas que lhes precedeu - nenhuma delas comandada por Rommel, mas sim por Von Arnin. Poderia ter resultado numa grande vitória alemã e num grande atraso na finalização da campanha da Tunísia (para os aliados). Não foi uma única derrota do exército aliado (britânico, americano e francês), mas uma série de derrotas que demonstraram o quantos os americanos estavam "verdes" para o conflito e quão mal funcionava a coordenação conjunta dos aliados. Ao final, alemães e italianos perderam em parte por erros próprios, mas em grande parte por absoluta carência de recursos e inferioridade aérea. Em 3 meses, seriam expulsos do Norte da África, principalmente pela ação do 8o exército britanico.
Very well done video here! ✨👏🏼😎✨
Even regular troops of today would have their ass handed to them very easily by almost WW2 combat troops. Because they "knew how to win." You can't train that into someone.They have to find it by staying alive. That's what happened at this 1st meeting with German troops.♥️😎
Damn! That last "Stay tuned!" was an ASMR level sh*t in my headphones!:D
10:45 the"tank destroyers" were the half track or truck with a 57mm not exactly what most imagine when they hear tank destroyer
M10s were only coming into service in theatre of operations at this point in the war and M18s would appear very late in 1943 early 1944, M36s didn't appear till 1944.
I believe they had 75mm not 57mm and their performance early in the war over all was quite good. They were not pulled out of service because they failed, just better options became available.
The earliest vehicles used as "tank destroyers" in North Africa were open trucks - flat-bed trucks - with artillery pieces mounted on them. These were termed "portees" by the British, and they attained a mixed record in action. The guns could not be especially large since the trucks were not purpose-built for this sort of work. Later, the Americans mounted a 75mm gun upon/in an M3 half-track, a variation on the British practice. Finally, anti-tank artillery enclosed in a superstructure or turret was mounted on tank chassis with treads, in the manner of the M10 and later the M36 and M18.
These various expedients competed with towed anti-tank weapons for much of the war with both forms of weapon having proponents and detractors within the ranks of the U.S. Army. Anti-tank doctrine underwent a number of revisions during the war, whether formal or informal, regarding how to best employ anti-tank artillery in mobile operations. Emplaced AT artillery can be heavier and therefore hit harder at longer range, but such weapons are large, heavy and require heavy-duty prime movers in order to tow and emplace them. And emplacing them takes time, even for the best-trained and most-experienced crews. Self-propelled anti-tank artillery and TDs had the virtues of mobility and not needing much if any emplacement or preparation for use. Just drive it into position and you are more-or-less ready to go to work.
Eventually, the army evolved doctrine that used fixed and therefore heavier anti-tank guns (which also doubled as anti-aircraft guns in many cases) as a backstop to mobile AT assets, for example, in the case of an enemy counterattack penetrating the first layer of anti-tank screening weapons whereupon the fixed guns could, if sited properly, take on the enemy forces. Mobile AT assets would accompany the spearhead of the advance, and provide anti-armor coverage until the heavier fixed artillery assets could be brought forward.
Many indirect fire artillery weapons such as 105mm and 155mm howitzers, though not designed as anti-tank weapons, were provided with AT shells for use in case they were called upon to act in that role on an emergency ad-hoc basis. And their high-angle fire with conventional HE proved extremely useful, too, in deterring enemy vehicles, armor and troops. Even the best protected tank crew does not relish being caught in the open under a rain of 155mm rounds headed in-bound.
This is a good example how strong the german army was. Even with huge logistical problems, running low on fuel and ammunition, Rommel smashed the alliance. Imagine germany would only fight the us and Britain...i think we would all speak german today 🫡
Overestimating the enemy is as dangerous but more stupid than underestimating them.
💯🤔 is it me or is my history mixed up General Patton was not at this battle it took over command after. 🤔🤔🇺🇸 recognize him in some of the B footage
Whilst the Dark Docs channels cover awesome, interesting and rarely covered subjects, they often use broad statements, generalisations and have twisted facts and events to sound better.
@@jdd736 it’s called looking up on Wikipedia and making a episode word for word
I thought Rommel wasn’t there at this battle? Wasn’t he back in Germany on leave when this incident occurred?
@@jdd736 He went to great lengths to soothe your fragile Pride.
@@Alsatiagent sounds like your needing something soothed if a simple observation has upset you 😄
Excellent stuff bro
I worked in a beef packing house in my twenties, so I worked with a WW2 vet who was in the north Africa campaign. A couple of his stories said as much about the German army, but his favorite story was mocking how the Arabs had to squat sort of like a woman to pee to keep it off of the long frocks they wore.
I served in the 82nd as an Infantry Paratrooper (Desert Shield/Desert Storm)and the things we saw the Arabs do in so many different occasions just threw my mind. From screwing goats masturbating in front of us men to whipping their females it was an eye opener and nothing I wanted to be part of, nor protect.....but there I was. Protecting and defending with my life. THE OIL!
I hate when I click on something I really want to relax and savor while time is short
Not sure why Gen Patton is shown in the beginning of the clip when Lieutenant General Lloyd Ralston Fredendall was U.S. Commander in the Battle of Kasserine Pass.
Patton is shown when he fired Fredendall.
No mention of the Italian centauro division which participated and acquitted itself well despite its poor equipment
The American brass wasn't all that adaptable... they maintained the fallacy of anti-tank guns and "tank Killers" right up to late 1944. They resisted the development of the Pershing tank that every tanker in the US Armed Forces was pleading for and never really got. The 20 they finally got in 1945 was too little way too late.
Why didn't you show any snippets of LG Lloyd Fredendall?
The Americans once settled proved they were a formidable force
LOL they fought against an already beaten Country…
A documentary video about the battle of The Kasserine Pass without even one mention of the name of the fail and coward commanding American general: Lieutenant General Lloyd Ralston Fredendall is NOT only incomplete and grossly injustice to the dead allied soldiers BUT also a horrible negligence and incompetent of the documentary producer! Lt. Gen Fredendall is the major (and only) factor in this defeat.
Besides Normandy campaign this was the closest 1 on 1 the Americans faced the axis ( as they had the majority of their army in the ost).
I would say the first week of the Ardennes offensive was a 1-1. In some areas it was even a 1-2 favoring Germany.
@@redaug4212 it was till the air side became involved.once allied air power came into play it was only a matter of time. Doesn't help Germany didn't have any oil fields besides the ones on Hungary.
@@kyleschafer6275 Germany's defeat in the Ardennes came early. A lot of people tend to chalk it up to Allied air power or German supply issues, but really they lost the battle in the first four days when the 6th Panzer Army failed to push through Elsenborn Ridge as envisioned by Hitler's "Big Solution" plan. Despite possessing the element of surprise, numerical superiority, and enough fuel to get their armored units to the Meuse, they ultimately failed because their entire plan depended on the US forces retreating or capitulating like they did in North Africa. In other words, it was a tactical defeat turned strategic disaster for the Germans.
CoD players be like "this wasn't actually that hard. Just ran up to the bunker, threw some 'nades in there through the gunport, then slipped inside and ran to the exit while shooting everyone. Once outside, the whole company was already there and we all sat and had a smoke. Nothing to it, really."
I have a particular interest in Operation Torch, the DAK & the whole of the North African Theater of Operation. This is a good, but small chapter of the conflict.
I enjoyed this presentation.
Thank you.
Great video, but I feel cheated. What exactly did the US forces do when adapting to German tactics? What differences were there from the defense of the pass to the defense of the town?
I watch alot of ur stuff. If ur facts are correct,its amazing how u can gather all the facts & put footage with it
The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a bloody nose for the U.S. Army at first but after the Americans fell back 50 miles, they were reinforced, reorganized, and counterattacked and took back _all_ the ground that they had initially yielded to the Germans. The U.S. Army's effective and successful counterattack at the Kasserine Pass is hardly ever mentioned.
Good video, except for the Tank Destroyers were not neutralized they barely escaped down a path on the backside of the Mountain that a P40 saw and came back and lead them to it allowing them to escape and fight another day.
You take on really good topics but your research is sometimes lacking or seems rushed. Take the time make it a longer video, believe me you have a lot of people watching and would get an even larger group of avid WWII Historians to watch. Hell, A lot would even be willing to help your research out, as most of us don't consider it work but enjoyable.
You don't even point out that the Actual Command Element of the U.S. and French forces wasn't even at or near the battle but over 100 miles away in a bunker. You mention only a few of the Units and not even by their Divisions like 1st Infantry ( Big Red One) 1st Armored Division which was decimated on fake with drawl by Anti-tank guns.
This one almost felt as if you read only the Wiki-page and only part of it. I am not trying to bring you done, I am trying to help you, with your content as you do cover a lot of Interesting History, but you sell yourself short and by glancing the depth that could really make this a great channel and stand out. Just remember quality over quantity when dealing with History and you will never go wrong. Also, with this topic you are not going to get the younger gen as much as middle and older, who enjoy a fully fleshed out video and will stay for 30mins- over an 1hour. Drachneal (Sp) videos are very good at this.
YES! BIG RED ONE ❤️
I endorse your comments, Major. It would also be goog if the videos matched the narration. It gives the impression that American troops wore British uniforms and that Patton was at that battle. Of course most viewers understand that is stock footage but it can be misleading if not edited properly.
The mention of U.S. Trenchs reminded me that the "Trenchs" were SLIT trench, like only a foot or so deep. Germen Tankers would turn and drive up the Slit trenches, crushing the solders hiding in them.
What is a capital "T" trench? lol
You know, I want to thank those few brave American men who stayed the course in this battle, which eventually turned things around. I am proud of all of you. Well done men, your sacrifice was not in vein! Today, living in America I am a FREE man because of men such as yourselves. Thank you very very much. -Peter age 72
One must remember that US leadership wanted an early European front. Churchill was adamant against it, offering 'raids' on the continent as an alternative (which was unacceptable to Americans), so Africa was chosen. Kasserine Pass was a valuable lesson, in both naval invasions and land combat. Or as is put for startups - fail fast, fail cheap. This would not have been possible during an invasion of France. But it is also a lesson in the 'unknown unknowns' - before being tested in a real life scenario, especially if it is a huge endeavor, it is good to get some realistic feedback on your product.
These men were the best of the best of the 20th century
who exactly? The German troops supporting a racist dictator or the Americans supporting a racist democracy? I would argue Martin Luther King etc. are just as good.
New ally :D ? US was supporting and supplying the Brits long before entering the war. In fact they were at least in a passive manner in it for pretty much day one.
They wanted to wait until it was obvious that the Axis couldn't stand any longer and were shocked to see them keep going. So they supplied even the Soviets and since Germany was quite aware of the US supplying the British they destroyed the ships from the US that took way in European territory. Since they sent supplies with civilian ships as well the Germans also attacked those ships by the way.
The US wanted to wait until all war partys would be exhausted and at their limits to act and have an easy game. Even that this than was cancelled by the attacks and war declaration of Japan and Germany, they just did that but with a bit more dirty hands than they wanted to make. But when the war was over they took all they wanted anyways and unfortunately the Soviets were still able to stand as well. What an irony because without the US they would most likely would have been distinguished or at least not been able to go on at all. I mean even that the eastern frontline also collapsed because to much progress and Logistic not able to keep up with it, another reason was that the main focus now went back to the western frontlines. And in the end the Axis not had enough men and ressources to keep going but especially holding both lines. It just all collapsed than.
This was not our finest hour. That German 88 mm gun was pure murder.
However, payback is a mother.
The 88mm dual-purpose Anti-aircraft/anti-tank gun was famously lethal, and many Allied troops dreaded it. However, it was not especially unique in any real sense, other than how the Germans employed it. True, it was a superb weapon but most major nations by then fielded anti-aircraft guns in the same size and performance range. The United States, for example, had 90mm guns in their inventory, and the British the famed 17-pounder gun and other capable designs, and they weren't alone.
The key German insight was that anti-aircraft guns shared in common many of the desirable characteristics of an anti-tank gun, i.e. - flat trajectory, high muzzle velocity, good performance at extended ranges, etc. The first recorded use of the 8.8cm gun as a dual-purpose weapon occurred during the Spanish Civil War. The Germans were again reminded of the utility of the weapon when 88mm guns were pressed into service on an emergency basis to repel French armor counterattacks during the Battle of France in the spring of 1940.
Having discovered how adaptable a weapon they possessed, the Germans then designed an assortment of carriages and sights for its use in various roles, some for anti-tank use only, some for AA use only, and some for dual-use, and so forth.
The other reason the 88mm gun became so famous is that German land forces were mostly on the defense from the midpoint of the war onwards. And the 88mm gun made a fabulous defensive weapon to cover withdrawing Wehrmacht forces. One which experienced and combat-savvy German generals used to their advantage.
At 2:25, that is the HMS Barham exploding, while the narration is talking about German/Italian shipping being targeted. Kind of a bad mislabeling as element of supporting media.
This is the very first time in years of studying WWII and watching vids but it is the very first time I have ever heard of the Nebelwerfer. This makes me wonder if this was something they came up with after first running into the Red Army's Katyusha in 1941? I know the Germans were stunned at the Katyusha so I wonder if the German staff got to work right then or if this was a weapon they had all along.
Yup this was something they came up after saw katyusha rocket
No the German "Nebelwerfer" ("Smoke Thrower") was based upon the WWI German Minenwerfer ("Mine Thrower") powerful but comparatively light weight short range howitzers.
Similar to the US Army 4.2" "chemical" Mortar, primarily intended to fire Smoke rounds, somebody clever suggested HE rounds too.
Nebelwerfers were first fielded in the 1930's.
I think they got less attention because during the invasion of France they were used (mostly) for laying smoke.
I don't think any were sent to North Africa. Most Nebelwerfers were employed on the Russian Front.
@@paladinsix9285 Nebelwerfer doesn't correctly translate to "smoke thrower", it translates to "launcher for rockets invented by Rudolf Nebel".
@@matthiasrupp3566 Nebel is surely the German word for fog? As in Operation Nacht und Nebel.
@@michaelfoster5577 Of course Nebel means fog/mist/haze, but in this specific case it is pure coincidence.
name of soundtracks used in video ??
My Dad was there with the 1st. Infantry Division, The Big Red One...
Iowa's Montgomery county had the highest death rate per capita of world war II. Having its entire national guard unit killed at this battle
Shame we don't have a General like Patton or Rommel these days
Just think what would have happened if the Tiger battalion had been released to Rommel as he requested.
With the British Firefly and their 17 lb'r gun with comparable range and penetration capabilities to the 88 being landed with one in every five or so tanks AND the first occurrence of a Tiger being confronted with just one of them coming up on the losing end..... perhaps the slothful Tigers being present in any numbers would not have been that great a game changer.
He'd have run out of petrol much quicker is all.
@@brustar5152 The Firefly did not exist until a year after the Kasserine battle that we're discussing.
Great content...respect
Honestly, if this is the worst defeat we suffered at the hands of the Germans, I'll take it.
It really wasn't that bad of a defeat, and I'd argue the US troops did better than most green troops did.
We got our azz beat ok got us. But we adapted and overcome as Americans military be doing for 100s of years. Look at the poor bastards in Ukrain. Russia getting beat by refuses to adapt at this point.
Huertgen Forest was worse
@@barryrammer7906 Russia getting beat - Is that what CNN says?
@@welditmick no my friend don't watch that trash. I truly mean to up date your tactics. I have no dog in the fight. Just my opinion not a fact.
@@welditmick Why else would they be threatening to use nuclear weapons?
Possible video idea: The 1933 Transfer Agreement. *not sure "they" would allow that video, but it would be a lot cooler if they did.
One small nation dared to stand up for themselves. It took the rest of the industrialized world to make them heel. But ya “america ended up ‘winning’” in the long run.
You call it "daring", I call it "arrogance"
This is what wehraboos actually believe. Holy mother of cope.
@@redaug4212 So if he's a wehraboo you must be a capitalist boo or a commie boo? Calling people names because of their opinions is childish.
@@ErichHiller44 He's quite literally defending Nazi Germany's war of aggression. Calling him a wehraboo is generous, if anything.
@@redaug4212 war of aggression? Where did you get that shit from? Britain and France declared war to Germany.