What did the British think about the Wehrmacht?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 ноя 2018
- What did the British think about the Wehrmacht? How good was their intelligence? What of their assessments were correct, which ones were wrong?
»» GET OUR BOOK ««
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - / mhv
» paypal donation - www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» shop - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««
» minds.com - www.minds.com/militaryhistory...
» facebook - / milhistoryvisualized
» twitter - / milhivisualized
» twitch - / militaryhistoryvisualized
» RallyPoint - www.rallypoint.com/organizati...
» tumblr - / militaryhistoryvisualized
Military History NOT Visualized is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.
» SOURCES «
de Watteville, C.B.E. The German Army in 1939, Royal United Services Institution. Journal, 84:536 (1939), 723-729
Bull, Stephen: Allied Intelligence Handbook to the German Army 1939-1945. Bloomsbury Publishing: London, 2017.
Müller, Rolf-Dieter (Hrsg.); Volkmann, Hans-Erich (Hrsg.): Die Wehrmacht - Mythos und Realität.
John R. Ferris: ‘Indulged in all too little'?: Vansittart, intelligence and appeasement. In: Diplomacy and Statecraft, 6:1 (1995), p. 122-175
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Ferris, John. Intelligence and Strategy: Selected Essays, Routledge, 2005
May, Ernest (Ed.): Knowing One's Enemies. Princeton University Press, 1986.
Poeppel, Hans (Hrsg.); W.-K. Prinz von Preußen(Hrsg.); von Hase, K.G. (Hrsg.): Die Soldaten der Wehrmacht. Herbig: München, Germany (1998)
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 9 / 2 - Deutsche Kriegsgesellschaft 1939 bis 1945
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Band I: Ursachen und Voraussetzungen der deutschen Kriegspolitik (English Version below)
Germany and the Second World War, Volume I
Deutsche Militärgeschichte - 1648-1939: VII: Wehrmacht und Nationalsozialismus 1933-1939
Deutsche Militärgeschichte - 1648-1939: VI: Reichswehr und Republik (1918-1933)
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Band 1: Ursachen und Voraussetzungen der deutschen Kriegspolitik (English Version below)
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War, Volume 1: The Build-up of German Aggression
Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Hrsg.): Deutsche Militärgeschichte 1648-1939 in sechs Bänden. Bernard & Graefe Verlag; München, 1983.
Murray, Williamson: The Luftwaffe Experience, 1939-1941. In: Cooling, Benjamin Franklin (ed.): Case Studies in the Development of Close Air Support. Office of Air Force History: Washington DC, United States (1990), p. 71-113
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» DATA CHAIN «
Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#ww2 #militaryhistory #wehrmacht
If you like in-depth military history videos, consider supporting me on PayPal, Patreon or SubscribeStar or PayPal:
paypal.me/mhvis --- patreon.com/mhv/ --- www.subscribestar.com/mhv
pre 78 I was running five miles in the morning and ten at night, holidays included, 4 years straight and no issues. When I joined the Army, I was only running 5 miles a day during
PT. My feet and shins swelled up with edema because the Army's boots. In WW2 roughly 1/4 of casualities were foot issues due to the boots. I'm guessing the Army boots of WW1 had similar problems with a similar number of casualties due to foot rot, frost bite etc. Love the vidoes.
One should never buy a Jaguar, it is british and crap !
The further info link doesn't work the video doesn't seem to exist anymore
@@mangofanta2667 thanks updated! It was a limited time offer.
My favourite quote from a British Army veteran (comedian); "I don't know how we won" - Spike Milligan.
Right, first things first....
*putting the kettle on* [4 minute later]
Now we watch!
What hot beverage would you recommend brewing and consuming while watching Military History Verbalized?
Personally, I use to have a 0.47L thermos with tea in it at hand in case these videos manage to ambush me like now (perhaps I should rewatch the "Why intelligence failures happen" video...).
Damn. You hid your Britishness well up to now, Bismarck.
Mind you, those pants mark you out as a Johnny Foreigner for sure.
Me too. I made a quite strong British 'Builder's Tea' which has milk, lots of sugar, and leaves the tea bag in for quite a while. Then relax, sit forward, and listen to MHnV. Ahh.
No sugar thanks, I'm sweet enough.
exactly what I did
The British viewed the German Army as a first class European military institution that they needed to take seriously. They knew the Germans could field and sustain a massive Army on the continent and that they could not fight them without some kind of alliance. So they tried to maximize their prodigious Naval power where they could. On the other hand they had confidence in their own military traditions and capabilities when its built up, while they did indeed respect the Germans they were not afraid of them.
It's also important to know that the British feared their loss of their Empire, and due to a lack of their own efficiency they took many efforts towards appeasement for the deep arms race, not the 'regular' one. However, governmental believes in keeping the Empire by fighting the Germans and Japanese was a complete disbelieve. The Alliance, you speak of, were the British puppies like the Polish, the Jugoslavs/Serbians and others.
It's actually a little bit funny. Often I hear of some wanna be historians the Wehrmacht was bad but I've never heard it from those guys who fought them. To sum up what I've heard from Allied Officers and normal Soldiers: They knew the Germans would be the better ones in an equal fight, so they always had to get some kind of an advantage. For example Air superiority, just more stuff or the possibility to attack from many sides. But even then, they often haf difficulties like in Monte Cassino.
@Hugo Holesch That comment does not imply fear, it is about professional respect which is s different thing entirely. The British had fought the Germans for four years on the Western Front and elsewhere during WW1 and knew how good they were. They also knew that they were not supermen and could be beaten, as they were in the end.
@@schwulerbaumgermane6249 Even allowing for your linguistic difficulties that post is a load of garbage.
@@kingstar0084 I've never heard anyone say that the "Wehrmacht was bad" and anyone who did say that would be howled down immediately and quite rightly so. Basically the allies knew the German strengths and their own weaknesses and so they built, trained and organised their forces accordingly, there's nothing to be ashamed of in any of that. You might also ponder on the fact that for all their strengths the Germans lost two world wars in 20 years, grand strategy is not their strong point it seems.
Overestimating an enemy is useful when you are trying to get money out of politicians.
And when you want to have your armies prepared for the worst. Generally better to overestimate than underestimate your opponents. Sun Tzu said something like that.
Underestimating them if push comes to shove generally doesn't go well unless you have strategic depth
Astute observation,Dawg!
My Grandfather (Royal navy) seemed to think they where pretty professional and organised. He was engaged in combat in the channal.
and they werent even against the best divisions
notenex - obviously the Wehrmacht wouldn't want its ' best divisions ' drowning in the middle of the English Channel !? The Kriegsmarine E-Boat and F-Lighter crews that did fight therel were all top notch .
Travis Currie -- have you any short anecdotes he mentioned?
I'm wondering, no one's grandpa here fought for Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe? OK, OK for 75 years they are depicted as the Nazi demons. But its OK ppl. We now know US/Uk/USSR were no less butchers. More than ever now, we need to know the story from the other side.
One my friend's grandfather fought for the Wehrmacht actually XD @@aniksamiurrahman6365
Yet again, brilliant research. I do about an hour long podcast each month for Bletchley Park, but for a start that’s just audio, so I can work out just how much work you must have to do. Well done.
As an ex Navy person my self, it seems odd that the Navy strength wouldn't be spot on. Its pretty easy to count war ships. Just do like the Soviets did and put a "fishing" trawler right off the coast in international waters.
Remember that this is at a transitional time in naval power. It is hard to estimate naval strength well when you don't know if huge battleships or large fleets of destroyers are better. They also didn't know precisely what range modern battleships would engage in and while submarines were known to be strong their true strength remained a mystery. It is the same problem the navies in the pacific faced with the question of the aircraft carrier.
In the interwar years its clear there wa a lot of incompetence in intelligence services, a reluctance to share across services, and political fear about publishing 'bad news'. In that environment it was probably easier for the Germans to spread disinformation too. Remember intelligence wasn't viewed the way then as it was post- war
Easy if all the ships are together in one place for you to count. Pretty difficult if you're counting different ports at different times, how do you know you haven't counted some ships twice, or others not at all?
@Wits End Yes! we had a copy of Janes in the sub control room.
@@LewisRenovation was Janes always absolutely up to date? And did Janes also supply information about which ships were in for refits, overhauls, resupply, training cruises, wet storage? I find logistics fascinating so any comments you have about the issues of determining a foe's actual strength and disposition are very welcome!
Interesting parallels here with the Naval Chat you and Justin had some time ago about intelligence assessments of Japanese airpower. In both cases analysts used national stereotypes to help them interpret things they really did not know a great deal about.
' National Stereotypes ' - what were you expecting them to use but historical and observed , general characteristics ? What would you use Foreign stereotypes , Dice , the Tarot ?
@@gosforthlad I suppose it wouldn't have gone over well to say, "we know these things, and all this other stuff we don't know and can only speculate about until we get better intelligence." Sometimes not interpreting things (to the extent that doing so is actually possible, of course) is actually more helpful because it leaves unknowns acknowledged, rather than hidden behind a veneer of assumptions.
The fitness thing was part of a cultural belief at the time that exercise could be harmful. Physical culture was not yet mainstream in most countries. Germany led the way in physical culture and physical sciences. Today its normal to make recruits run Kms, swim, do obstical courses ect. But that's a precedent actually popularised by the Germans after the Commonwealth and U. S took note of S. S training methods and successes. There were people in the West who advocated physical culture in military training, but largely it wasn't taken that seriously in the 1930's.
If you speak to people who were alive back then this is verified.
Interesting observations.
That's an arguable point. If true, then why does the British Army Physical Training Corps trace its origins back to 1860? There is also plenty of film footage available of physical training exercises being practised by British army recruits during 1914-15.
The H. G. Wells novel Mr. Britling Sees through it, written in 1918 about the middle class experience before and during the war comments that those expecting conflict in Europe were obsessed with keeping fit.
The small midfle class maybe went rowing and CYCLING, to some extent, my own grand father held interwar records in cycling but in no way was physical culture as it was called mainstream until after WW2. And that doesn't compare to the sort of military fitness training that was introduced by the S.S and later adopted widely
Tbh us infantry training regime is nothing special
Nice dubbing at 11:20, I assume you made a mistake with the year :) It just made me laugh.
I chocked with my coffe.
@ Of course They would!
More like 11:15
SonderKraftfahrzeug SdKfz 222...SonderKraftfahrzeug SdKfz 222...SonderKraftfahrzeug SdKfz 222!
Re captions. Thank you. Much better!
Didn't realize before how amazing your beard is. You should feel proud.
Androrac germany are invaded by muslims. He is just prepered for german kaliphate 😂
Beard bros represent!
zepter00
Fuck off smoothbrain
Military History Beardsualized.
As you can see, there is a price to pay for a magnificent beard
Another great video, thanks
You have a great channel!! I have learned knew things from your channel!! I am glad that I am a subscriber!! Keep up the great work!!
8:33 I have read some sources calling it the "Schlieffen-Molkte plan", as it was based on the 1905 plan designed by Schlieffen but Molkte made his own changes.
In my opinion this is why it didn't work. I mean because of the changes of Moltke
@@kingstar0084
If only Moltke could have deployed all those non - existent divisions Schlieffen had imagined.
Great idea for a video
At this time last year, your stubble and full hair were in opposite places.
You have pulled the grooming Immelmann maneuver.
I like your videos. I have been watching for a while. I kind of liked the old ones better. It's not that I don't like seeing you but I liked all the graphs and charts and stuff also. Maybe you could break up the shots of your face with charts and stuff. This would also give you a chance to break up the lecture into smaller segments to record. Sometimes towards the end of sentences you get quiet and mumble a little. I hope you take this as constructive criticism! I love your vids!
You have to add some sort of magical sound and visual effects as you suddenly appear it the beginning of the video.
These apprehensions about the effects of intense physical exercise may relate to the much lower level of regular exercise that used to be normal for even Olympic-level athletes in Britain up to the 1950s: they used to have full-time jobs or stay in university without taking a term or even a year off to compete and certainly did not exercise every day like modern gym addicts.
Sport for schoolchildren and students was something that the Victorians had begun to develop, but measurement of army recruits for the Boer Wars showed many of the populace to be under height and underweight, and thus presumably undernourished: exercise may not have been what they needed most.
The British also followed the Romans in valuing sport more than the gymnasium exercise that the Ancient Greeks went in for.
8:00
aber die maginot Linie funktionierte doch genauso wie gewollt
(lt. Frieser, Blitzkrieg Legende)
8:48, "Hans, do you know the difference between a neutral country and a highway to France" - MHV 2018
highly accurate and well laid out ...truth will always shine
Do you have a video on the German view of its opponents?
I thought this was going to be about actual battle performance and conduct.
Battle performance and conduct matter far less than economics, administration & logistics.
Ïncredible video!
Interesting topic, well presented. But I will throw in a vote for "visualized". Graphics reinforce points.
you know I have 2 channels for a reason.
Anglo Saxons fighting Saxons
The German region of saxony should not be conflated with Old Saxony.
Should of never battled in ww1. Maybe teamed up with them rather than peskie french
@@Heresjonnyagain that is true. old saxony is today´s lower saxony, but we are brothers nonetheless.
imagine being like this lol
ruclips.net/video/DUReYO2n06w/видео.html
Hi A great video. What month in 1939 was this RUSI published?
Can you do another video, but the other way around?
Where can u find more studies or academical writing about the Great General Staff, I want to learn more about them.
I appreciate you translating original sources into American so we can understand it first hand.
*Into American*
@@RazgulTheKind This is exactly the reason why someone else has to translate it for them.
Good to hear van Belgium invasion in 1914 wasn't actually Von Schlieffen's plan. Von Schlieffen made many war plans in the years before, which were later modified. The By-Pass trough Belgium was ment to only be executed in case of a war with France only. In case of a double-front war with Russia on the other side, Von Schlieffen wanted to retreat int o Germany to draw the French army in and make the surrounding move on German soil.
So what the Germans actually did in 1914 was take the plan for a French-only war and apply it to a Franco-Russia double-front war.
That was better plan to concentrate on Russia and let France beat herself against German defenses
The "exercise injuries" sound like incidents similar to modern British Army "Beasting" casualties... a consequence of exercise drills being used as punishment/bullying. Horrible and wrong, but not resulting in systematic mass injury as the author clearly thought possible. (Certainly over-training "could" have done that, if widespread and systematic, but didn't in this case)
The best way to explain German military training is to look beyond German itself. Take a look at the German trained Chinese battalions during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Chinese battalions trained by German officers held Shanghai for 3 months even though the Japanese had a superior force in air, sea and land(with tanks). Of course there wasn't enough battalions that were trained which would eventually lead to a Japanese victory.
Can you make a video about the overall effect of the strategic bombing campaigns of W2 and if they were worth it?
@Alexander Challis Hey, thanks. Been looking for something like this for a while.
"A stir up"
I believe that the word that you are looking for is "Consternation"
Very interesting video. The details of the war are endlessly fascinating and we can't know too much of them. However, I think the main goal of understanding the war is to grasp what happened at the highest conceptual leverl. I would encourage you to make a video on this subject. My own attempts so far lead me to these conclusions:
1. What we call WWII is really two separate, but simultaneous wars with only a single common combatant, the US. The Axis powers hardly undertook any combined operations. Despite FDR's announcing a "Europe First" strategy, since the economic interests of the US actually lay in its developing Pacific Empire, US forces went promptly on the offensive in the Pacific by early 1942 and fought the decisive battle in June, 1942.
2. In Europe, the war was between the only two countries that had GDP growth rates above 5% during the thirties: Germany and the USSR. The UK having concentrated its military capacity in the navy and to a lesser degree the air force, was unable to field an army that could face the Wehrmacht. Therefore, the US and UK despite repeatedly promising Stalin to open a second front in Europe, pursued a strategy of avoiding combat with the Germans, while leaving the real fighting to the Red Army. The Allies therefore spent their energies on unimportant sideshows such as North Africa and then Italy, which was never the soft underbelly of anything, while standing on the sidelines of the real war between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army.
3. The British Army has only one significant victory during the war at El Alamein, but then unaccountably failed to follow up by destroying the Afrika Korps even though they had reliable intelligence from Bletchley Park on the limited funcitoning armor still available to Rommel.
4. After wasting the Repulse and Prince of Wales, followed by the fall of Singapore, the British withdrew entirely from the Pacific War leaving the defeat of the Japanese to the Americans as they left the defeat of Germany to the Russians. They did, however, manage to reassemble a Pacific Fleet in 1944 presumably for the purpose of recovering their lost colonial possessions after the Japanese defeat. This British Pacific Fleet played no part in any major battle of the Pacific War.
5. The Japanese began the war against the US with a successful tactic, but, unlike Hitler, had no strategy actually to defeat their enemy. Even so, highly industrialized colonial powers could sometimes be defeated by inferior local forces, but only if the economic costs of the war both drained the imperial economy and sapped its public morale as happened with the French in Viet Nam, for example. Unfortunately for the Japanese leadership, the war had exactly the opposite effect on the US: the economy grew instantly achieving full employment and so finally ending the Great Depression, which propsperity ensured that civilian support for the war remained high.
6. The US and UK finally did carry out their long promised invasion of France in 1944 only to prevent the soon-to-be victorious Red Army from continuing unopposed all the way to the Atlantic.
7. Following the end of the war in both theaters, the US snatched the Mideast oil from the clutches of the British Empire which had always been viewed by FDR as the long-term economic enemy of the US, unlike Germany. Without its own oil supply Britain's decline as a world naval power was thereafter assured.
Minute 7:
Germans had one or two heavy bombers in the pipe ( Ural-Bomber-project Dornier 19, Junkers 89, Heinkel 177), but like most european coutries ( France, Poland, Italy, Germany etc.) nobody thought they would need them, when attacking the neighbours. Göring just didn't give them a go, because, like you say, only numbers counted and you get two or three light/medium bombers for the same money/ressources as a heavy bomber. The first ones were slow and the medium bombers at that time were so fast, that they could have escaped the fighters that were at the time they were projected (not exactly clever).
The interesting thing on aircraft numbers is that Churchill from the back benches used to hammer Chamberlain on the fact that the RAF woudl fall behind the Luftwaffe.
10:15 Germany produced ~1400 Tiger I and ~500 Tiger II
Actually it was
1,347 tiger 1 tanks made not 1,400
@@michaelhawkins1528 That '~' symbol means appropriatley. But the exact value is helpful
This is a massive underestimation. My numbers show 1401 Tiger I and 501.25 Tiger II were produced during the war, to be precise. Source: my hoi4 campaign
Grandad used to tell us "If I had to go back - and if you could take the politics out of it, I would happily fight alongside a German - they were f'ing good fighters." - Parachute Regiment
It's ironic that not only did Versailles plant the seeds for WW2, but it also helped Germany develop the most professional army in Europe.
Limited to 100,000 men, Germany would only allow the best people into the armed forces, so they were really top notch.
So when Hitler expanded the army, those hundred thousand, and the tough training and discipline developed was passed on to the newly expanded army. Hence why everyone had such a tough time fighting the buggers.
Exactly, when War came, Germany was perhaps the most prepared country in the world.
The French, especially the British weren’t that focus on rebuilding their military to a high standard, which contributed to much of the early war disasters.
Intriguing, one of the biggest issue for all was language interpretation, a famous one been the US Army references to Gas delivery. That created quite a storm, in the Wehrmacht until a sensible officer explained it was fuel. The ultimate expression of British analysis of Germany was operation foxley by the SOE www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/hitler-assassination-plan/, the operation was vetoed because Hitler was making such a Horlicks of the war, the last thing the Allies wanted was competency from the Wehrmacht.
It is known for the Battle of Britain the RAF over estimated the size of the Luftwaffe, whilst the Luftwaffe under estimated the size of the RAF. Obviously, under estimating of the defence force by an attacking force results in major complications. MHnV, you my wish to review Lorenz breaking Hitler’s top secret code at Bletchley Park by Captain Jerry Roberts, completed just before his death, he explains breaking Tunny, it’s use, the detail associated with the German order of battle for Kursk and Overlord. Interestingly, they identified the potential of the Ardennes offensive providing warnings. Although, Pattons G2, and Montgomery intelligence officers acted on it, the issue was with Eisenhower’s command. Obviously, obtaining intelligence is one thing, effective use is another. The true extent and depth to which Bletchley Park had total visibility of the Wehrmacht operations will never be known. However, it was invaluable to the Allies, in understanding the political and military intelligence situation within Germany.
A very good post, thank you. Re. the Ardennes though, don't forget the complacency of Omar Bradley who was actually warned by Eisenhower some weeks before the German assault that it was a weak point in his line and a potential problem. Of course he compounded this oversight by his complete paralysis once the assault began and essentially hiding under a table at his HQ for most of the battle, worried about Germans in US uniforms coming to kill him. Have a look at his memoirs, there's no mention of the "Battle of the Bulge" at all!
Not sure that I agree with your comment about the RUSI analysis on a lack of quality in depth. I actually think this was spot on. By the end of the campaign in France OKW were worried about the quality of some units and the replacements. Some of the infantry divisions especially didn't perform to well. The French put up a much better performance against Fall Rot.
Damn your beard is glorious
In a way those story feel like what is a what modern day military journalists in the mainstream media been writing. A lot loud noises but with out much in substance.
I'll be interested to hear what the reverse was.
Respect, rightly so.
Possible to do a ''Plan Z'' naval buildup video?
Ok, im not an expert on this, but I think light/medium/heavy tank classification was different in 1940, than it is now. Germans had pz1 which weighed about 5 tons, pz35, pz38 and pz2 at about 10tons, and pz3,pz4 and neubfahrzeug (i think) at upwards of 25 tons, and as I recall pz4 was designed as a breaktrough tank, which was supposed to be as heavy as they could. So in my opinion, they could have called pz3 and pz4 as heavies, because if you don't count soviet tanks, ~24-30 tons were the heaviest tanks operational at the time.
My late Uncle fought against the Fallschirmjaeger in both Crete and Monte Casino.
In both cases, he describes them as: "Tough, Resourceful, and very Honourable".
His opinion of them was that as individuals, each was a very decent man, and that without the NSDAP ideology, each was a very fine Human Being.
This; from a man who, for many years after WW2 held a deep hatred for both NSDAP ideology and Japanese Imperialism/Fascism. ... In the early 1980's his views mellowed somewhat: He'd begun to recognise that German did not equal 'Nazi" nor Japanese equal 'Imperialist/Fascist insanity'.
To me, it was extremely interesting to observe this transition.
Never will I have his experiences, but forever shall I treasure those few words he spoke to me of them; including Teaching me to sing "Lili Marlene" IN German, despite his never having spoken a word of German in his lifetime.
Kind and Respectful Regards MHnV, Uyraell, NZ.
Very true, and the respect wsa mutual. A german paratrooper captured in N.Africa was asked by a British officer what he had been doing the night before in PoW cage and replied, "I have been singing and drinking with my kameraden of the Englischer Fallschirmajager". The British 1st Parachute Brigade were bivouacked nearby, a few weeks earlier they had been killing one another.
I'm old enough to have had the privilege of talking with many WW2 vets especially from the European Theater. Never once did any of them diss the abilities and professionalism of the German soldier. They commonly used terms like: tough, hard fighters, skilled soldiers, not willing to surrender except as very last option. The Ardennes Christmas offensive really caught the Allies off guard and taught them a good hard lesson about German resourcefulness and sheer determination to pull a victory from the ashes. The Waffen-SS was feared especially if they were in a defensive mode/position and the US infantry had to attack them. They'd get weak in the knees knowing they were going against the Waffen-SS because a lot of them were going to be causalities.
@@LuvBorderCollies With the internet full of "experts" babbling about topics they gain info about from other online babblers and the video game crowd, some bizarre and plain stupid assumptions get posted about the quality of an opponent.
Both sides battled each other for *half a decade*...there is no way the average soldier from the UK or Germany didn't have a healthy respect for the other, after all they were only trying to kill each other for what, almost 1500 days?
Okay, for what its worth (not that much really but its what i was told so here it is, just for the record) my Father fought the Luftwaffe, so to speak, in 1941-42, as an RAF air gunner, until he was invalided out. His take on the Germans - excellent soldiers, very good at the business of war and from his experience very brave. He was impressed and he wasn't a guy who was impressed easily.
"He who has not fought the Germans does not know war". - British Military Aphorism.
I'm thinking about the post war (WW1) German Economy & the hardships endured by the average German family. I assume that the nutritional intake was severely reduced during the depressed economic situation so this would have had a negative impact on childhood growth. This would make more sense to myself than the proposed "Excessive Sports" theory.🤔
Would the "1000 heavy tanks" be something to do with the British habit of classing a tank as either "cruiser" (light tank) or an "infantry" (heavy tank)?
Team work and process continues to be difficult to describe.
ïnferior"systems well employed consistently prevailed
Who cares how fancy your hammer is , if you are not a good carpenter
well said
The British were blessed at the time with two world class military thinkers in JFC Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart.
Are we just ignoring the fact that this man is only 5 kilos of muscle mass away from being a character in Vikings?
Yes
Its utterly irrelevant
I'll raise my pint of mead for that.
Churchill said so many bs about the german army that is quite difficoult to believe that he even was a military man. For example he stated that the germans enter Austria with motorized heavy artillery...
The Luftwaffe would have had a strategic bomber in 1939 if General Walter Wever had had his way, but he died in an accident. (Ju89 & Do19)
Sports medicine knowledge was very limited at that point in time. Many assumptions were made that did not turn out to be accurate.
Well, they weren’t too keen on a major land war rematch until ( at least) 1944. Luckily they prevailed on the over confident Americans and maybe prevented a debacle.
They knew the Maginot line would hold, they also recognized the gap to the north, but Belgium specifically quit without warning so the whole line folded. By that time the Germans were already in France. The Brits outproduced Germany for fighters during the early war, even though a Bf109 took 4000 hrs to build, a Hurricane took longer and a Spitfire took 2.5x a Hurricane, 15,000 hrs for a Mk V. After Dunkirk, the news eventually filtered through that the SS had shot some 200 unarmed prisoners, the hatred for Germans was such they stopped picking up U Boat crews if there was any possibility another German boat was around, especially at night. Hence so few crew were picked up from the sinking of the Bismark A submarine was detected and the destroyers HMS Dorsetshire and HMS Maori moved off after picking up just 111 (I met one in Australia) sailors and left 100s in the water to die. Same went for firebombing cities, despite what some would say they knew what they were doing and in a sense they perfected what the Germans had done to Coventry, where Goebbels named it 'total war'. Even when I was a boy 15 yrs after the war Germans were utterly and without reservation hated.
Four years after the war Bert Trautmann OBE, a former member of the Hitler Youth, German paratrooper and PoW, was playing in goal for Manchester City and continued to do so until 1964.
Not "The Moltke Plan!" The Moltke the Younger Plan." Put the blame where it belongs.
Battle of France - advantage was doctrine and experience.
Around 11:00: You could argue that the assessment of Germany in 1944 was actually correct because Germany lacked the logistics (fuel in particular) to sustain the offensive at the end of the year. Also, you should read "Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown. German officers and diplomats had been trying to work with MI6 from the very beginning but the Brits didn't feel they could trust them.
16:30: I think I've asked this before but... my understanding is AAA was the province of the Luftwaffe. Could he be counting the Luftwaffe AAA that would be assigned to a division in addition to what the division itself might have? Or am I completely wrong about this?
Thanks for such an interesting vid. It’s interesting how national prejudices influenced the intelligence gathering of the British in several areas. I think the British military’s perception of the Germanic character was built over a very long period. For instance Germanic soldiers fought as part of Wellington’s forces (the KGL) or during the revolutionary war. I’m just not convinced that it isn’t accurate in general. As a Brit I think of Germans as a very well organised people who are good at working as a group, generally these are Germanic virtues. So I sympathise with the intelligence Officer’s mistakes. I perceive Germans as not being people given to rash fanciful notions but considered if not calculated. Then again it is hard to match this perception with the current madness of mutti merkel and her open border notion. I hope you Germans can conform to my ‘verructess english’ prejudices again some time very soon. Thank you again for your interesting video.
The x factor in this discussion is how seriously the British took their estimates. Or you or I. What blind spots in battle? What comes of it all?
I know that back in the day "Too much exercise is bad for you and runs dry your internal batteries" was a thing. Hell, some people still believe that.
Before this factoid drops into the dustbin of history, we should note that "some people" includes Donald Trump. That would explain his daily use of a golf cart, to the disadvantage of his cardiovascular health and (probably) cerebral circulation.
Where did that idea come from? One source would be sexual mythology. There is a Tantric idea that men need to conserve their sexual energy, or even their semen. That was parodied in the "Dr Strangelove" film where one general is obsessed with "vital bodily fluids."
@@faithlesshound5621 And despite it all he beat the CCPlague.
@@DIEGhostfish Thanks to "hydro," bleach and UV light!
@@faithlesshound5621 HCQ actually does work to a degree, and the others were exaggerated hypotheticals,
@@DIEGhostfish
Remember, kids, "Don't try that at home!"
Your eye for detail is preventing you to see the big picture accurately
When Neville Chamberlain thought he had peace he was buying time
'Rolls-Royce Merlin Engine' it will not link
The British needed time to built the engine plants
Great video,i havé a question.Did Germany wanted UK to join thé Axis,?
"We can smack communists together, wouldn't that be so much fun! Maybe we can even smack communist frenchies!"
"That sounds like tilting the balance of Power in Europe towards anyone besides myself so that'll be a big no from me thankyou very much."
Obviously, even Sweden would have been a better ally in ww2
@@Gszarco94 _____ Not so. Hitler wanted Britain to remain neutral. 'Not to interfere'.
almightyinferno he preferred the British over the Italians though. He noted and respected the average British Solider, he did fight them in ww1 after all. Though he did believe they were badly led
@@burlatsdemontaigne6147 The Daily Mail wanted Britain to make a separate peace with Germany, so it could go on doing its thing in Europe. After the war, Tory right wingers like Alan Clark carried on saying Britain should have done that.
Watchers wondering about the British paralysing fear of the bombers may wish to look at this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through
Note that this stopped the British from forward-deploying much of their interceptor fleet to France. As one of the great deciding factors of the Fall of France was the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe in close support and rear area interdiction/strikes one can only wonder what would have happened if the British had not been so consumed with stopping long distance bombers and had sent many more interceptors to France what the result would have been.
Does anyone have a perspective on: How did the Germans/Japanese view the strategic bombing campaigns? Was it viewed as an act of barbarism/war crime? Did they fear the bombers, or was it seen as a waste of resources.
I guess this is also going to depend on the year, location, civilian/military/high command perspective, as well as personal attitude and support for the war. Many factors are at play, but in general.
good question, I forwarded an adapted question to Bismarck (Military Aviation History).
The German line was that it was "terror bombing" and Allied aircrew were "Terrorflieger". Civilians were encouraged to beat up and even lynch shot-down aircrew, and sometimes did.
The Japanese were quite vindictive about the Doolittle raid, even though it did little damage, and executed some of the crew members who crash-landed in China and were captured. Later captured B-29 crew members were sometimes beheaded, a couple of them even after the dropping of the A-bombs.
Pretty sure the allied bombing of civilian centers was just viewed as barbarous killing of civilians by anyone on the recieving end of it.
probably the same way americans view 9/11
I think the mistake you are making is amusing that the miscalculation of German numbers was due to a mistake of assessment.. I believe that these estimates where produced by organizations who had a motivation to motivate their Governments to spend more of their budget on expanding the Military... Even today military men tend to try and talk up their nations potential enemies to scare their politicians into granting them a bigger defense budget..
Excellent point
It was not only for expanding the military, but a prepared war throught blockades and sanctions, which were basically targeted to protect the plutocratic elements from free competition of goods. It's far more important to create an enemy first. It might be true, that this is the truth also for today, but much less centrally motivated. Also today, many numbers are inflationed compared to their worth. I can always fake my numbers of GDP with legal tricks for example...
@@schwulerbaumgermane6249 Interessanter name.
"Even today" - lol.
Did one quarter of a million in air strikes include the use of gas? Edit - As my understanding is pre-war planning usually accounted for gas, which of course (thank God) never happened.
Ive stopped trusting anything coming from any of the allies once i understood more about the soviet union....
Everyone should...
At this point almost nothing about either World War seems very accurate
It seems to me that the main deterrent to the use of gas is the likelihood of the other side replying in kind. So Britain used poison gas on land against the Bolsheviks when it intervened in the Russian civil war, and from the air against rebellious Kurds refusing to submit to the new King of Iraq, but not against Germany, Italy or Japan.
@@faithlesshound5621 Yet considering how brutal WW2 became, it is somewhat surprising gas wasn't used. It wasn't like either side hesitated to use any other weapon at their disposal, or cared about civilians. We used a radioactive weapon but were rattled about using gas? Bizarre.
OK - I have to say that the Reichsheer were badly undervalued by the Western Allies. Chamberlain had to resign once the Nazis crossed the Belgian frontier. No argument. Churchill then put his own stamp on the UK's stance: No Surrender! No negotiation, no watering-down of any conditions. Britain would fight on - alone - and await help from 'our great and powerful friends' in the USA. Who were already providing Britain with arms and equipment. Once US forces were in the War from 7 Dec 1941, the Reichsheer were in trouble. They might've been able to sustain a war against the Soviet Union. But they couldn't possibly fight the Western Allies as well. And let's get the terminology right: the Wehrmacht was the Armed Forces of the German State. The term included the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air Force). And after a few months of combat, the British had a healthy respect for all three arms of the Wehrmacht. (Which didn't mean they automatically rolled over and surrendered!) German heavy industry geared itself for war production shortly after Hitler came to power. So in addition to motivation and training, the Wehrmacht received excellent arms and equipment when they needed them. British industry supported the Royal Navy first, the Royal Air Force second - and the British Army came a distant third.
Very good analysis - I think you're about spot-on there.
The Atlanta Falcons!
Re: Military vs politician rift predicted for 1944. While not exactly the same, doesn't Operation Valkyrie count?
When Johnny Comes Marching Home
Two points:
(1) The reason that the RAF believed that bombing casualties would be so high is they assumed that poison gas would be used. Using a persistant agent like mustard in a dense urban area could produce 250k deaths in a week of intensive bombing.
(2) For an estimate made in 1939 the collapse of German Army in the first quarter of 1945 has to be considered accurate. The US Army outfought the Germans in the Ardennes even though they were suprised and outnumbered is an indication how near to collapse the Germans were. OKH knew the offensive was doomed after the first 48 hours because of the fierce resistance put up by small groups of American troops created sufficient friction to buy time for an Allied countermove.
Huh? I just defended the British estimate.
Less you face.
More of those little cartoons.
I like those.
😆
Different channel ;)
Well, we know the British ( combined with US and Canada and So. Africa ) was very very reluctant to tangle until 1944.
Meanwhile the Soviets in the east causing 80 percent of German casualties.
The worry about exercise being bad for the heart may relate to the diagnosis of "Soldier's Heart" or "Effort Syndrome" described by a Dr Da Costa during the American Civil War. It is thought now to have been a psycho-somatic syndrome, related to hyperventilation, or in some cases post-traumatic stress disorder. Soldiers were sent home from France in WWI with "Disorderly Action of the Heart" or even "Valvular Disease of the Heart" who probably had PTSD. Many conditions regarded nowadays as psychological in origin were at that time regarded as somatic.
"Flat feet" seemed more significant to pre-mechanised armies reliant on marching everywhere. Another minor foot condition kept Donald Trump out of the Vietnam War.
Pretty clear though that Donald Trump's affliction was draft evasion rather than a genuine medical malady.
@@revanofkorriban1505 i dont really blame him, there's no point in fighting someone elses wars. i sure wont do it
Random question, would the Panther be considered a medium or heavy tanks?
It is often listed as a "medium" but that must only in relation to the Tigers. At 45 tons, it is 20 tons heavier than the Mk IV, a "true" medium tank.
The tank designation really depends on the use the country gives them. For the german land warfare doctrine, the Panther was a medium tank, it was intended to be a multi-purpose and mobile vehicle, things it did partially because the small production numbers, and the lack of reliability the moving system had, the crews had to keep in mind many cares to not broke it. The Panther's task was to replace at some point the obsolete Panzer III and IVs, fulfilling the same role these had.
Now, if an allied country designed the tank, it would probably use it as a heavy tank, because of its huge size and weight (44 tons is heavier than most Churchill tanks, for example), and the armor was pretty thick for British and American medium tank standards. To be fair, the British still distinguished between cavalry and infantry tanks, so a tank like the Panther would be a freak with this doctrine.
To give another example, when the M26 Pershing tank was deployed, it was used as a heavy tank, because that was the place it had in the American arsenal and the best employement it could have against the Wehrmacht, a breakthrough tank able to bounce 75 mm long gun, and armed with a 90 mm gun, being the tank heavier, bigger and far more expensive to produce than any M4 Sherman. But by the time the Korean War started, it did not presented the same advantages it had in 1945, plus the reform of the US Armored Corps established a doctrine and a series of tank designs that gave the M26 the task of be a medium tank.
Well, the panther is only a bit heavier than an M4 which is a quintessential medium tank.
In role, it was to replace the panzer 3-4s which were also mediums.
It's a lot harder to categorise British tanks. Like the Matilda 2. A slow infantry tank, that, in it's time was well armoured but slow like a heavy tank, particularly compared to panzer ii's 8 tons.... But a weight of 25 tons itself ... Makes it lighter than a panzer 3... So is it a heavy tank or medium or a light?
Answer: it's an infantry tank :p
11 tons heavier...more than "a bit"
Germany classified their tanks based on the calibre of the gun and not the weight so to them the panther was a heavy tank. The allies did it by weight.
I only know that they thought their own commanders were idiots.
Well, the Dutch sure didn’t add to the number of tanks, since they only had two armoured cars battle ready
We had a bunch of water tanks though? ;-)
Don't forget the armoured car loaded with the nation's gold reserves and the royal family, heading towards London.
xaderp Must have been the third one :)
The Dutch were also not one of the allies. They were neutral and just had the misfortune of being a very convenient place for the Germans to base submarines and aircraft. Of course, that was before France fell so quickly.
For a video about the Wehrmacht they spent a lot of time talking about the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine. The dilution of professionalism goes down with the increase of conscription . The basic infantry soldier in the French campaign 1940 would be a good comparison, had German Quality gone downhill since the introduction of conscription.
Sure the outcome was terrible for France and Britain due to poor leadership but I would argue that at the section level the British regular was the better soldier even if poorly led at divisional level or not as well equipped.
> For a video about the Wehrmacht they spent a lot of time talking about the Luftwaffe and the Kreigsmarine.
The Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine were part of the Wehrmacht, you seem to confuse the Wehrmacht with the Heer (Army): ruclips.net/video/5DvuPalVZfg/видео.html
How to estimate the number of German tanks produced. It's worth reading www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/20/secondworldwar.tvandradio
wonder if that 'weak hearts' stuff is down to the poor nutrition from the depression era?
The Americans rejected a lot of young men for military service owing to the effects of under-nourishment caused by the Depression.
who are the Churmans
In the end they were not as good as they thought they were, when cofronted with a prepared army like they were in 1939 they started to lose
Wehrmacht were an outstanding fighting force, however they suffered from pitifully poor leadership in the last couple of years of the war
Competent leadership consistently overruled or outright ignored by the insane idiot in charge of the country.
And poor supplies...can't win without proper equipment, and they could never build enough equipment.
I would guess that what the Allies (and people like Churchill) were calling German "heavy" tanks in 1940 were actually just Pzkpfw-IV's. Since the Germans at that time didn't have any heavy tanks, they Allies probably just labeled their biggest tank - the Pzkpfw-IV - a heavy tank.
And even than it is complete hogwash, since the number was around 278 Panzer IVs and even if we add 349 Panzer IIs were are not even close. For a complete list (including Poland & Barbarossa), check this video: ruclips.net/video/kssbas7z9Gc/видео.html
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Yes that's true, and I think even today few people know how rare the Pzkpfw-IV was in the early war years. But I think the inflated perception of the Pzkpfw-IV in the Panzerwaffe during 1939-40 can also be attributed to German propaganda. It's not unlike the photographic documentation and promotion of the Tiger. If you go through the Bundesarchiv it's not difficult to find photos of Pzkpfw-IV "in action" during the invasion of Poland, France and the Lowlands (and a fairly sizable number that include rare early variants such as the Ausf.A and pre-series production Pzkpfw-III (ie. Ausf.A through Ausf.D)). So I'm sure the Allies had a greatly distorted perception of the number of Pzkpfw-IV operating in the early war years that may have simply been a result of successful German propaganda. By the way, the rarity of the short barrelled (ie. 7.5cm KwK L/24 ) Pzkpfw-IV in early war years might make for a good topic for a video in itself. Just a thought!
German culture triumphant! Except for its transmissions!
At least in early years of war the Germans were excellent soldiers, good ones. But I think individual initiative may've been somewhat frowned upon. If their Officers/Senior NCOs were wounded or killed they seemed lost, not sure what to do.
The British seemed to know more about the Germans than the Americans did
Monty thought they had fight left in them, the US paraded in Paris thinking the Germans were finished
Professional c...ts is the best description.
What did the British think about the Wehrmacht? The British Army thought of the German Army as Enemies?
This feels weird to say, but in defense of the German invasion of BeNeLux: Britain was joining the war alongside France from the beginning, so the protection of BeNeLux in the form of "you invade, we (UK) DoW" is void. The benefits of circumventing the Maginot Line outweigh the costs of occupying Belgium and Netherlands.
Will we ever get an German perspective on British episode?
Yeah, it will happen eventually.
The dutch had no tanks, just a few well used armored cars.
You had me at 'Mirror Imagining'