America's Most Feared Panzer Killer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 янв 2024
- At the beginning of World War 2, when Germans arrived in France after taking over Poland, the Wehrmacht’s Panzer divisions shook the world to its core.
The panzer division was much more than just a force of massed tanks; it was a combined arms team centered around the tank. In a Life magazine article published in 1940, an accurate depiction of the shockingly successful German army in the offense described them as [QUOTE]:
“It is not one single weapon, and it's not even a new kind of warfare. It is simply a more ingenious development and use of every kind of modern weapon that has hitherto been seen.”
Faced with this unprecedented threat, the United States Army found itself in a state of palpable urgency. A New doctrine was needed and fast. In late 1941, the War Department inaugurated a unique military concept: The tank destroyer.
By emphasizing rapid response, potent firepower, and mobility over heavy armor, the program aimed to cultivate a specialized force that could quickly engage and neutralize advancing enemy tanks, preventing them from outmaneuvering or overwhelming U.S. defenses.
Would this audacious tank destroyer doctrine be the linchpin that finally halted the German Panzer Juggernaut, or had the U.S. gambled its military future on a strategy few understood?
-
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -
Why the HELL do all of you Historical Documentarians insist on using the most obnoxious noises (music?) in the background? YOU are the only people who are keeping alive History. It certainly isn't taught in the schools and colleges these days. This information is IMPORTANT and doesn't need to be overwhelmed by or distracted by unnecessary NOISE! For the record, I am 86 and lived through WWII while my much older cousins (32 of them) represented the Family in all branches of the military and all theaters of the war.
Yes I agree , I really don’t know what they are thinking.
Either you are interested in this type of content or you’re not. How in the world dose background music make these more attractive ?
Calling this a "documentary" is a stretch.
It’s all we have. Definitely better without the backing track.
What is wrong with you people? Do you have some kind of hyper sensitive hearing that the rest of us don't have? I didn't find the video noises distracting in the least. But then again, I'm not a spoiled snowflake who is in danger of soiling his diaper.
@@louisvillaescusa , whats wrong with us ? Look at your comment. What is wrong with you ?
Stop with the fake thumbnails already! The tank on the thumbnail is a T28/T95 SuperHeavy Tank prototype, only 2 were made. One had a turret. The other one, shown, was a tank destroyer set up. It was on display at Fort Knox and sat outside the entrance to the building I worked in. Saw it every day for over a year. The T28 and T95 are the same vehicle. RUclips has a video, search "t28/t95 super heavy tank" and watch it.
It never had a turret
I do believe it was actually designed as an assault gun, for taking on breakthrough duties at large fortifications, neither as a tank, nor as an anti-tank gun.
The thumbnails bear no relation to the words, the video clips bear no relation to the words, all standard on dark docs 😂
So annoying. Becoming a crap channel
Although most of us have a basic understanding of history we would probably not have the slightest idea of what kind of tank is in the thumbnail so there is no reason to give this young man any trouble about his thumbnail.
My Uncle was killed in action in the battle of El Guettar. He was 19 years old, 47th Infantry, 9th Division. May he rest in eternal peace and I will be forever grateful for his sacrifice for the life I now lead.
Oh? Who you voting for in 2024?
Every lost life in a conflict is a loss that should have been prevented. But, it is a delusion to assume that the fight of WWII was about anybody's "way of life" from an American perspective.
The Third Reich was a response to the detriment of the aftermath of WWI. It was not intended to "conquer the world". That is the echo of the anti-German propaganda, which especially disgruntled exile Germans promulgated among the Western press and politically influential spheres. F.D. Roosevelt meddled decisively in the 1930's to provoke a war against the Third Reich, as he considered this a "gangster" country. He tried to evade any restraint that Congress and US law had erected to uphold non-interventionist policy. Hitler felt this pressure that was exerted towards British and French politicians and diplomats.
Chamberlain tried to buy time to strengthen British forces, before any hostility with Germany would emerge, and therefore, he tried to extend agreements with Hitler. His appeasement policy was mostly criticized within US circles, with ties into British and French decision makers. The anti-appeasement cabal held a firm ground within the British Foreign Office, which undermined Chamberlain's decisions all the time.
FDR disliked Chamberlain as an allegedly "weak" opponent to Germany. Contrary to popular belief, the relationship between Britain and the US was not all too friendly in the 1930's. As many other nations, Britain and France were divided about the views on the Third Reich. Some believed that cooperation was necessary, whereas others highly disproved of Hitler and thought that a war threat would make the regime tumble, when the German military and the people would feel misdirected by Hitler's decisions. Also FDR believed that threatening with war in Europe could smash the Third Reich from the inside. And, if that would not happen, an actual war would have to start as soon as possible, before the German army would have gained strength to a level in which it could defeat the French army (which pressured against Germany ever since anyway).
The American meddling in the advent of WWII remains mostly hidden from public attention, for understandable reasons. Once fully disclosed, these facts would paint a totally different picture of this main conflict of the 20th century.
Every lost life, certainly from the results of a political conflict, is one too many. But, cementing a myth about historical events is not going to help us building a more peaceful and prosperous future. We need to face the facts and learn from them, so that we can communicate and collaborate on an honest foundation.
A bonanama
@@OIFIIIOIF-VET TF DOES THAT MATTER?
My Dad was a M4 tanker in the 4th Armored
According to a US Army study of tank losses in WW2 for all combatants they could get records on…
1st place killer was Artillery.
2nd place was ant tank mines.
3rd was anti tank weapons. This included towed anti tank guns and infantry anti tank weapons like Bazooka, PIAT, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, RGG 43, etc.
4th was another tank.
5th was aircraft attacks.
You could leave that music out. It doesn't fit.
The incongruous and annoying music was a mistake and detracts from an otherwise excellent video.
here i am trying to pause videos in my tabs and unable to stop the rock music lol what was he thinking?
what a load
Nonsensical. If you must play music play something from the early 1940s.
I am a musician………and the music is wrong:)
The British lost a huge amount of equipment at Dunkirk. Much of it was warmed-over WW1 artillery but regardless they had to quickly rebuild their shocks.
The Royal Ordnance Factory Quick-Firing 57mm Six Pounder anti tank gun was particularly successful (also built under licence in USA as the 57mm M1A1 or M1A2 AT gun).
They were in use throughout WW2. One gun even stopped two (genuine) Tiger 1 tanks. Panzer III was no match for this weapon.
The de Havilland Mosquito Mk.XVIII carried a Six Pounder for use against U-boats. It had an automatic loading system developed by the Molins cigarette machine company. One Mk.XVIII used its 57 mm gun to shoot down a Junkers Ju 88 by blowing one of its engines off.
Only one third of the British army was in France. Over a third of equipment was taken back to England. Much left in France was older of WW1 heritage. By September all equipment was replaced with new and more modern equipment.
my grandfather was with the BEF in france and escsped st funkirk he later hook part in butma and borneo campaigns. I Fid sn SAS jungle training course with the Ghurkas i in Brunei part of what was Borneo in 1981. I was based in Hong Kong and volunteered ( nutty I know, but it was great!).
@@timothyseabrook1584
In English please.
Bovington Museum's Tiger I was knocked out of commission in North Africa by a six pounder anti tank gun.
Tank destroyers were a very interesting combination of economy and firepower. If you have to take on another tank, a tanks is generally always the best option. If you have to take on a large number of tanks, throughout an entire war tank destroyers have some unique advantages. First, they are lighter, easier to move, and cheaper to produce. A tank destroyer only cost about half of what a tank does. So would you prefer 100 tanks, or 200 tank destroyers? Generally, the first tank to fire has better chance of winning any encounter. In a war, one can strategically, use both. Tanks can be the cutting edge. Tank destroyers can be positioned in defensive places, behind hills and fortifications where the thinner steel plating is not a problem. Tank destroyers can also move across muddy fields, damaged bridges, and can at times move faster. It is a physical thing, they use the same engine and are not burdened down with all the weight. This means that even though a tank, might be the preferred option, the better options is the one that can get there. In a situations where you may have a bridge of limited quality, sending over the lighter tanks so troop have some heavy fire support is better than sending over a heavy tank and destroying the bridge.
To be clear, in the back lines, 200 tanks destroyers are better than 100 tanks. One is able to have multiple guns in towns, and also have multiple angles on the enemy. In part, war is a numbers thing. Many men, would prefer to ride in a tank destoyer, than walk. Manpower was not the limiting factor, having the right weapons was. On the ground troops are useful and still needed. But they also need support. Shipping in and landing vehicles via landing craft, also makes a difference.
Tanks destroyer always had mower powerful gun, thus they could engage targets from longer distance.
The heavy metal music is a distraction rather than a compliment to your very fine videos.
I say it's a compliment, since it sounds like Iron Maidens "Aces High" a bit.
@@clintwhittiker1221 I agree...the music is kinda cool. I would like to know who and what it is.
I like it!
Sucks.
Yeah, lay off the metal as background music. Unless you want to use some Portal.
Dad was in the Canadian 2nd Anti Tank regiment. Drove a White half-track towing a 17 pounder antitank gun. (76mm)
He never mentioned much about the war, but did say he participated in the liberation of Holland. And he and his crew
*did* successfully dispatch three sleeping Panzers, in one encounter.
R.I.P. Dad.
The M4 Sherman was the best Allied tank killer, once it was mounted with the British 76.2mm anti tank gun, and named the Firefly.
Don't you mean 17 Pounder gun
@@user-zo4nk4uq7z Jesus, guy the size of the gun was 76.2 mm.........
As long as it was not hit with a 88 ap shell.
truth be told that there was not that much difference between the American 76 mm and British 76.2 mm as far as performance...the American 76 mm was on many Tank Destroyers and no one really seemed to complain too much about their performance against German armor....
@@lazynow1most,y because Germany considered us army inferior to other allied countries.
It’s why us never came up against tigers etc, they only put these yuits up against Russian, British Canadian etc NOT inferior us units.
Your report makes it sound as if the tank destroyer concept was a success.
But the fact is that the army disbanded the tank destroyer command and all tank destroyer units after the war.
The TDs of WW2 spent far more time acting as mobile artillery and infantry support units that they ever did in the role their doctrine called for.
Well said
That what Germany wanted the Tank destroyer's to do. Look at at the early Stugs and Panzer 4's infantry support. Later they they added Tank Destroyers to help them deal with bunkers, buildings and tanks. So it was success on german side. Germany did have other units like Jagd Panther that were dedicated tank hunters. American and British used them to flank and infantry support. Tanks were designed to be more mobile and make the gaps. Tank destroyer's defensive and infantry support. Guess you kinda don't get concept of TD's.
@@shaunholmes9900
And, it's probably worth to mention the Red Army's tank destroyers, especially SU&ISU lines.
This channel is all about his rapid dialogue quoted from US Army BS featuring video that has no relation to the dialogue.
That is because they were too late to be used where they were needed the most - in the blitzkrieg war in Europe.
My father was in the 821st TD. They landed at D-day + 20, with half tracks and towed cannons. The self propelled guns (M18 etc) weren't issued until months later.
Yep.
The TD doctrine predated 1941 and a 'TD' wasn't an M10/M18.
Or rather is was ANY equipment that could be used to destroy tanks.
So the purpose of the TB doctrine was to rush to 'breakthroughs', and cut off the attack, using TDs. These could be either tracked or towed guns.
Ultimately the TD doctrine was discarded because it was too difficult to 'match up' TDs with German armour attacks with Shermans attacking, and then 'bumping into# enemy armour. So instead they moved into 'general medium tank'.
This music doesn’t bring ww2 vibes at all. It’s such obnoxious music I can’t even finish the video despite my curiosity
The M3 Lee was not a tank destroyer. It was a stopgap tank put into service until a turret to handle a 75mm barrel was designed and put into production.
I know right? and did you notice that "during the invasion of France" he showed germans walking by burned out shermans? lol I'll take "things that didn't happen for $100 alex".
@@muskokamike127 Agreed! I sometimes think our narrator takes some interesting clips and randomly shuffles the order and stitches them together without regard to his presentation (and adds that obnoxious background music).
Sherman could not survive a German 88mm AP round but neither could any German tanks. The Sherman won by its high reliability and sheer numbers being delivered.
A tank destroyer is defined how the asset is utilized. Towed AT guns were integral to TD units, though designed before the TD docterine was concieved. The author made an error and confused the M3 Lee with the M3 GMC which used the 75mm M1897 3.0 inch Field Gun ..
@@Mokimanify Yeah, I didn't think the Lee was designated as a tank destroyer but wasn't going to make a big deal out of it.
Found your back ground music counter Productive, I couldn't finish the video.
At 4:06, while the narrator is talking about the superior German armor, the clip shows a German officer riding in a captured British Bren gun carrier sporting US markings… lol
Both US and British Empire vehicles used a white star identifiers during the liberation of Western Europe.
Read "The Panzer Killers". It's about MajGen Maurice Rose and how he used tank destroyers to smash German armour formations. He was a fighting General, always up front and engaging the enemy with small arms himself. He was finally killed by a Tiger commander while speaking to him.
I know what small arms means but whenever i read it. I think of someone with trex arms smacking something.
@@HellYeahImIrish I see you've met my Korean buddy. LOL
General Rose was the highest ranking officer killed in the American Army in WWII. He has a Wikipedia entry but he doesn't get near the present-day fame that he is owed. He was was not surrendering he was going to kill the commander of the tank that smashed his jeep !
Where did this happen ???
Herr Generaloberst Guderian, definitely!!! Gen. Bolger's book is a great -- and essential read. He also pulls no punches in his characterizations of good, not so good, and positively lousy generals in WW2 ETO. I wish I'd had someone like Gen. Bolger as my PMS when I was doing my ROTC bit instead of lack-luster ticket punchers.
The music ruins it and I'm a metalhead...
I've commented on this in previous videos, makes it hard to follow dialog.
Agree completely that the music does not help but hinder these videos.
Gave upp after 6 minutes. Sad!
RUclips has a great feature. It's the CC button. They should have an NM button. NM stands for No Music. Knowing RUclips, NM would only be available for use by Premium members.
Get rid of the music.
It's like a bad local tv sports show with generic guitar music added to NFL highlights
The vehicle in the thumbnail is not in the video
One still exists out of 2.
First time the machine has dropped me into your long-form vid or is this a new approach? I enjoyed it - you give us a novel approach and depth - thanks again
Patton, per the biography of him written by Ladislas Farago, Patton always thought the best tanke destoryer was another tank. He never really believed in the Tank destroyer Doctrine because it was by nature defensive in Nature. Patton knew enought about tank warfare to realize that to beat tanks you out manuevered them and took the fight to their rear areas. As he say in the movie.
"I don't want any messages saying, "we are holding our ground". The only thing we are holding onto is the enemy. Were going to hold by the nose and kick him the ass! We're going to kick the hell out of him, .. All... The... TIme! And were are going to go through him like CRAP through a GOOSE!" There is no real place for a defensive-self-propelled anti tank gun in that line of thinking, no matter how fast it is.
What made the M18 valuable was that speed. But It's best use was as a breakout tanks for his armored cav regiments. There were good at that, but never designed for it.
The army agreed, since nobody makes tank destroyers any more.
@@recoil53Because they make man portable anti tank missiles. Ever hear of the war in Ukraine?
Yes, and I've heard of Pakfronts, PIATs, RPGs and Panzerfausts...@@mrbaab5932
@@mrbaab5932 And yet they make tanks. There were also a lot of wars in between, as well as many decades. Then again, bazookas already existed in WWII.
It's like you're pretending to be wiser and know a lot, without having those qualities.
@@mrbaab5932 They got rid of the tank destroyer branch right after WW2. Still have tanks.
like the pictures of M4 firing as artillery but the tank shown at the beginning was to be used to break the West Wall. the sad thing is that they looked like a tank and therefore were used as a tank.
I don't envy the mechanics who had to work on this beast in the field.
One of my fave WWII movies was "Sahara" with Bogie as an M-3 tank leader. Good stuff
So what has the picture of the "mystery" tank advertising the video got to do with the article?
I have some suggestions that I think would be pretty neat if you would do it for the next videos. Also I love watching all of your channels. I got in to watch them when I went on a learning spree on the F4U Corsair.
1) R3 T20 FA-HS
2) OTO R3 T106
3) L3/33 CC
Stop with the click bait pictures. The click bait picture is the tortoise . A combined American and British idea. To smash its way though the sigfreed line. You pod casters and your click bait you are not fooling every bod!
Also, the meaning and correct usage of 'decimate'.
@@etherealbolweevil6268 i wish people would use "devastate" instead of "decimate." more appropriate.
My uncle, Tom Braidwood, was a gunner on a M 18 and was the first to arrive in Bastogne to meet Jochin Pipers King Tigers, he smoked 3 of 4 Tigers, turning the armored offensive around for a day. I heard the story from him and his driver, Johnny Maurine before they passed. They told me about driving north through the snow clearing each village as they went north. Amazing the amount of kilking they did and it was like just another day. Wow, if they could tell their story to all of you.
You have to keep your memory of their stories alive, because you may be the only one who can. My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima, and he apparently told me stories he never told his children. The current generations are growing up with less and less knowledge of WW2, which is too important to all our lives to allow to be forgotten.
@@bwilliams463 agree
The 6 pounder (57mm) was very accurate and especially with APCR rounds, unlike the 2 pounder (37mm), was an effective tank killer. (Stug, Pz 3 and 4). It remained in UK service until 1959. As a towed gun its sucess was partly due to its low profile, allowing it to be easily dug in. Its teething problem was its brass recoil slide which warped when hot. This was fixed by 1942. By mid 1944 the 17pounder (76mm) was the pinnacle of Western Allied guns. British 25 pounder (88mm) where short calibre and though used in North Africa with solid shot, were poor tank killers.
7:00- what crew served weapon is that?
One of my uncles was an M18 Hellcat mechanic at the Battle of the Bulge
I agree the music doesn't do anything to me for the programming. It's annoying. Makes me want to shut it off and unsubscribe to it
I do not get the reasoning when what archive material is used. The connection with the text is almost random.
What has the production of Sd.Kfz. 231/232 8-wheel armoured cars to do with US tank destroyers?
But that was the most interesting part, as I had not seen those yet.
Great vid but the metal noise in the background is annoying.
Small correction: There was no "10th" Panzer Division in Africa. The Afrika Korps consisted of the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions.
The British used the M10, and then upgraded it with the seventeen pound AT gun as fitted to the Sherman Firefly. This modification, which made a good tank destroyer a superb one, was known as the 'Achilles'.
He said “deep in the enemy’s rear” heh heh heh 😂
Oh dear Mrs. Your name and your comment I came up with Dicked Tobbits, deep in the enemy's rear lol.
Informative video as always! Loved the footage from Camp Hood! I spent some time there when it was Fort Hood years later.
First Team!
Got to love the complete disconnection between the pictures and the words. Knocked out Shermans backing up talk of the 1940 Blitzkrieg are just one of the highlights.
As a person who just listens to the video I see this as an absolute win.
I know right? I caught that as well.....
At 4:08 the Sherman, with the box for the radio, is wrong for the time. Is it equipped with the 17-pound gun?
Stock film error?
Wow, I didn't know Dokken was a band in the 1940s. Rock on!
Brutal music choice
Interestingly, the Germans had their equivalent of the Tank Destroyer, the Stug, and it was the premier anti tank weapon for them too.
ISU 152 was the ultimate "scrapper" of every German armored vehicle, not just tanks, including Tiger, King Tiger and Jagdtiger.
This is a good channel. It would be better if the videos were time-linked to the audio. Showing Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs during the fall of France muddles reality. And it fails to mention that with all this mechanized wonderwaffen most the German soldiers and logistics were on foot or horse drawn.
The videos have gotten so bad, he showed rommel in late 1944 on another video when he was dead. Its gotten very historically inaccurate
Dark is a cluster
There was one video about the Westland Wyvern (A post war Royal Naval aircraft, largely used in Korea) and he showed a load of footage of the Hawker Typhoon (A WW2 RAF Fighter that wasn't used post war, I believe).
@@leanbongo7929 Yes, I wonder if some kind of intervention may be required in the near future.
His already urgent tone seems to have been dialled up in this one too.
@@leanbongo7929 His video about the Fairey Fulmar almost exclusively shows footage of the Fairey Firefly. Fair enough though, there probably isn't much footage of the Fulmar available.
P.S. The Firefly used by Britain and Canada was very effective against German tanks in Normandy. A moment of rememberance to Art Boon who manned a 50 cal atop a tank from Juno Beach through Holland.
My dad took part in the Omaha D-day invasion and ended up commanding 5 Sherman tanks into Germany. In his old age he told me "We didn't beat the Germans...........the Russians did." Hence we lost about 250,000 men while the Russians lost over 10 million. Mongols, Turks, Napoleon, Hitler, Nuland.............can you see how the Russians could be goosey about their boarders. Had my dad faced what the Russians did, I probably wouldn't be here. My dad may have been with your Uncle, had he not gotten drunk in England - rolled a jeep and broke his leg and missed going to Africa with Patton who he had trained with.
It wasn't Guderian who came up with the concept of Blitzkreig, it was Sir Basil Liddel-Hart, and unfortunately he put into print as the British establishment wasn't listening to him, one of the readers of his book was Guderian. Also the French tanks were superior to the German tanks. France like Britain went for static line defence her tanks didn't have radios and sacked Generals prior to key battles, these Generals were trying to put things right! Certain French Generals did communicate with us Brits. Don't forget on the 19th May the British mounted a counterattack and almost cut off the German supply lines, again lack of good communication meant it stopped, also Rommel halted the advance by using anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank warfare.
This channel is abysmal. I used to watch and was amazed at the flagrant inaccuracies.
I decided to check if he was still bullshitting his way through his “Dark Docs” and was not disappointed.
Sir Basil Liddel-Hart was part of the ALL TANK idea, he did not advocate a combined arms approach. Of course neither did the Germans until they saw how weak tanks in Poland were vs infantry in built up areas, or vs air. Then they put infantry, artillery and anti-air in ALL their tank groups, which they had not before.
@@tommy-er6hh Thank you for your comment I've probably fallen for his view that he was the one the Germans followed. However one should not forget that he was advocate for bombing cities, as away of weakening enemy morale. Which clearly the Germans did, However there is no primary source linking the Gemans with his work. At best his work could have been classed as a confirmation that German thinking was going down the right path!
@@tommy-er6hhIt was an Australian general in WW1, Sir John Monash that showed the world the effectiveness of detailed planning and combined arms at the battle of Hamel. Incidentally it was also Australians that showed the world German tank doctrine could be defeated when they gave Rommel's tanks and supporting infantry a bloody nose and held Tobruk for 10 months.
The music is not doing any good
Background music was distracting
“Panzer Smasher”
Good punk band name
Please loose the music. Great video otherwise. However the Matilda2 tank almost stopped the german advance before Dunkirk. If it hadn't been for the Germans using their 88mm AA gun they would have been in serious trouble.
And in 1995 I was using a 2-story high machine in a machine shop in Calif. and I asked the maintenance man
why the machine had German writing on it and he told me that it came from Germany and was
used to make all the Panzer main gun barrels.😳
You know, if you just showed a picture of the correct tank destroyer while you talked about it this video would be much better. You found pictures of all the generals. I had to check Wikipedia to see what the different tank destroyers looked like.
I think this dude just randomly picks images of AFVs with his eyes closed - if I were you, I'd try someone else for this type of content.
I'm only here because I clicked by mistake thinking it was someone else's channel; not sure if this person actually has that much interest in historical accuracy in general.
The french tanks were actually better than the german ones at the start of the war. However, they lacked the communication systems, and the organization that Guderian had set up.
That’s totally true but it wasnt just the tanks Germany was using,pervaden was the main ingredient you add that to a whole panzer division you whole tank crews driving non eating non sleeping just going full throttle and gassing up their tanks amped up on pervaden.Hitler thought he was so fkn good with his blitzkrieg,pervaden= Blitzkrieg with out the drugs their us no blitzkrieg.
While a standard reply, based on French armor and gun size, there were only a few, and they had their downside: poor viewports, weaker than German gun sights, separate isolated positions that one had to get out of the tanks to switch if anyone was out. I would say it was a wash which was better.
And balls.
@@tommy-er6hh the french tanks also had the commander also doing the position of gunner, which added to a way slower response time. Thick armor but it cant drive to the battle field, it has to be brought up by train, than drives its self the last few miles. While early panzers did drive up and down france at will. Unlike later panthers and tigers which were so heavy they ate transmissions for breakfast, so they also had to be driven by train to the battlefield. Doesn't make sense to compare heavy tanks and light tanks in a vacumn.
@tommy-er6hh 1800 captured french tanks weren't 'a few' and the Germans used them just like they used their own tanks. But as they couldn't get new parts for them, and all tanks of every nation are maintenance heavy, the Germans stopped using them as parts and ammo became scarce. The Germans (and the soviets) captured and used each other's equipment. The Germans had British Churchills and crusaders, French tanks, soviet T34s and KV Is and IIs, American M3s M4s and M10s. They were adept at using and maintaining them. The Soviets had a number of captured German tanks, panthers, IVs, IIIs and like the germans were adept at using them.
Equally important as the tank was mechanized infantry which followed up on armor breakthroughs and assisted in screening and destroying antitank guns and enemy infantry...
Heavy tanks make formidable roadblocks for checkpoints…
I actually liked the music. It kind of felt like watching one of Popo Medic's videos. Cool.
The thumbnail is bullshit, the T95 never made it into production.
*T28
Your thumbnail is of a super heavy that didnt leave testing till after ww2 ended and never made past three prototypes on production.
What is that at 13:30? It kinda looks like a Bob Semple, out on field trials.
Tank destroyers were the turretless vehicles which were used by Germany and later USSR, with emphasis on frontal armor and firepower. The American TDs were basically light tanks, with emphasis on speed and firepower. After WW2, some nations took note of this and continued producing light tanks, especially France, but also UK and USA.
The turretless armored TDs like STUG and Panzerjaeger vanished from history, and never returned.
Why have the T95/T28 in the thumbnail, if the video doesn’t even include it? Yes it was a tank destroyer/super heavy tank, but it never even saw combat.
Because this channel is hot garbage. Has been since he started.
I stopped watching for years and just checked in to see if he was still as inaccurate / click bait heavy…
And it’s still the same.
UNSUBSCRIBE is the only way!
My understanding of the tank destroyers was that they were the superb execution of a flawed concept.
I think that's the opinion of the Armor mafia. A fast platform with a heavier gun could use maneuver/mobility more effectively than slower tanks. The video mentions that the emerging doctrine was to keep many in reserve in order to counter enemy armor attacks. Today's equivalent of a tank destroyer is the IFV with ATGMs that outrange guns. The M1/M2/M3 doctrine was for the Bradley to strip away tanks from Soviet formations using their TOW missiles and superior optics. Then the tanks would go to work on the BMPs.
When Bradleys were introduced to NATO the Soviets had to classify every Bradley formation as a tank destroyer. It changed the calculus on the battlefield and the Soviets couldn't keep up. Desert Storm confirmed the concept.
@@chrishooge3442 A good book on the subject is Tank Killers: A history of America's Tank Destroyers. by Harry Yeide.
"In late 1941, the War Department inaugurated a unique military concept: The tank destroyer." The Germans were using tank destroyers well before the US even entered the war. They designed the Panzerjäger I in 1939 and were using them from 1940 onwards.
Would have been interesting and more bearable without the background noise
late night 2000s history channel vibes
there you go with the back ground music again?????i fail to see whu its nessassarry
Great video, as always, but please lose the sound track!! I’m ok with metal, but it’s really distracting as used here.
At 0.10 an M7 Priest rolls by. Definitely not in the German arsenal!
Whats with the shit music last few episodes pointless makes me turn off sort it out
I agree with @james2382, to me the heavy metal background music is distracting rather than complimentary and it's not like it's contemporary in any way ...!
It was not the tank destroyers that defeated the panzer force. It was a combination of numerical superiority, better reconnaissance and air power.
Thank you for an enlightening video.
That the tank destroyer played a role in neutralizing German panzers is not in doubt.
Nevertheless, allied air power also played a significant role in destroying them too.
Soviet armored played even greater role.
M18 had great success at Arracort i am really surprised that wasn't mentioned
I would like to point out, that the allies labelled the successful German tactics as "Blitzkrieg" when in fact, what they were witnessing was co-operation between German forces. The British in particular, through embarrassment, called it "Blitzkrieg" then quietly, and reluctantly admitted, that there was extreme prejudice between their Navy, Air force, and ground forces. Their top brass simply didn't get along. The Germans demonstrated that they must work together to achieve success.
Apart from the music, almost all of the film footage is from years after the beginning of the European war... don't think there's any images of a MkIII Panzer?
You forgot to mention that Allied fighters using air to ground missiles were very effective against German Armor.
The British Typhoon fits this example quite well.
The tank destroyers were only effective in Ambush positions as German tanks had more Armor and bigger guns.
They also employed “Shoot and Scoot” tactics. They were not effective as advancing tanks as the Germans had better anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts.
Only about 5% of German armour was directly taken out by air power.
Air power hampered German movements moreso.
The combined arms strategy was first used in WW1 in the last allied push to push the Germans back to their borders. Billy Mitchell and 1.500 aircraft, British tanks and French Artillery all working as one. Together, the unit gained more territory than in the previous 4 years. These same participants forgot this in 1940.
Please get rid of the background music!
I'm finding the background music too distracting - enough to stop watching this video. You don't need musac to support your explanations.
So which one of the 30 odd tanks you showed was tank destroyer??
Arrrggggg! You use a pic of a T28 as click bait and then don’t even mention it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Are they playing August Burns Red in the background? It's very similar to their sound
All these people that make RUclips videos think that they have to play music to entertain their audience. They think everyone likes their music and it’s got to be loud so you can’t hear them. I like the sounds of silence myself.
4 Hellcats halted an entire Panzer advance during the battle of the Bulge.
Man this channel has gone way down hill since I first came across it. Have some integrity dark docs and show a machine that didn’t even see service.
The awful Walker Bulldog for a second...
The REAL tank destroyers at the tail end of WW2 were the RAF Typhoons and the RAF Tempest v loaded with six rockets each. The Battle of the Falaise pocket where these aircraft decimated hundreds of German Tanks.
tank destroy M3 with heavy metal music in background lol
The music is horrible for this.
U fools, that music is all wrong
In 1940 the BEF was far more mechanised than the German army.
The destroyed tank shown at 4:13 is a sherman firefly - it had a gun well able to defeat any german tank - and also one that arrived in 1944 when the western allies had more tanks and better organised and equipped armoured and all arms combat teams.
The tank destroyer was far from a uniquely american weapon, though US tank destroyer doctrine was a defensive doctrine. In action with the allies moving forwards most of the time they worked in overwatch roles - and in this role the US designed TDs performed admirably in both US and BCE service. TDs worked in their designed roles in Tunisia, at Anzio, and during the battle of the bulge.
With Pershing and Centurion western tanks got to the point of having equal or superior guns to the TDs and thus the vehicles became obsolete.
The dominance of BCE and US air power and artillery also undermined the need for TDs.
Interestingly, reading the TD doctrine, it maps well onto the use of modern helicopter gunships in NATO tactics.
NZ came up against 1AD once and then was like, "Nope!" from then on. lol
Such a missed opportunity for the title ‘US panzer smasher that made the Fuhrer furious’
"Panzer" means armored/armor...The dude with Don Quijote "Sancho Panza" was the guy that carried his Armor, hence the "Panza" or "Panzer" ...The armor worn by kings and knights has that shape over the belly which also makes reference to the "Panza Armor" belly meaning "Panza" in Español ...which was the main Armored Part of the individual...over the Chest, which may also explain the "Chester" part...in reference to Armored men, or Soldati which also makes reference to metal fused, or "Welded" together as it is what "To Weld" means in Español..."Soldar"...also, in reference to Heat, as that from the "Sun" or "Sol" which is how metal was fused/diffused together and apart from the ores...🤓
My grandma lived for her gardens. Canned her own food. She was a great survivalist and didn't know it.
Tank destroyers were invaluable at the battles of Arracourt and the Bulge.
One problem with this channel is that--tho the use of real late-1930’s and early-1940’s footage is laudable--almost NO thought about how the images being shown on screen line up against the words being spoken in the video script seems to occur. In this particular video, for instance, just after the indecisive use of tanks in the Spanish Civil War has been discussed, and the narrator moves on to contrast this with the “German Panzer divisions, combined arms units centred on the Panzers,” we are told, a (comparatively) long piece of footage focused on an early short-barreled Sturmgeschutz III is featured. Though the STuG II was *certainly*--especially after it was given a longer, high-velocity barrel--a central and even *crucial* component of Wehrmacht units (especially on the Eastern Front, where it, unlike the Panzer III, could destroy the sloped armour of Soviet T-34s from distance), initially STuG III’s were not even considered to be part of specifically “PANZER Divisions,” serving instead alongside infantry and artillery units. The Sturmgeschutz III, while indubitably a powerful, useful weapon, and built upon a Panzer III chassis, *lacked a rotating turret,” and was not, in fact, a Panzer/tank; it was, rather, a Self-Propelled Gun (SPG), which had to rotate the entire body of the vehicle to find targets.
The "music" ruins the video
Lose the heavy Muzak which is way too fast-paced for your highly syncopated, elevated , and somber narration. Otherwise, I really liked it. Cheers