There are some great lectures from the Admiral on the Falklands action. Maybr there is some romantization, but it is very nice when the Admiral explains why he could only use one "ping" to find the argentinian sub.
Another excellent 'what if' episode. Just a couple of items for the panel to consider: (a) it's bad form - and interrupts the flow of dialogue - for a panel member to interrupt and correct a trivial error by another (looking at you Chris!); (b) I'd also have liked longer expositions by Drach - again, uninterrupted by Chris! - and; (c) a few more visual aids besides maps would add value to the overall accumulation of data, key, critical events and time eg add a calendar etc. Otherwise well done and I look forward to more episodes. I always thought that British intelligence vis-a-vis the Baltic in early 1940 was appalling bad if not outright negligent; it ought to have been tracking German shipping - merchant and kriegsmarine. Surely it had coastal spies in eastern Denmark & southern Sweden too?
Yes, I sensed some tension between them after Chris interrupted to correct Drach. Chris could've let Drach finish speaking and then addressed his error in a more polite fashion. His interruptions continued throughout. I've seen Chris mis-speak a few times on the show, referring to the Germans when he meant the Allies for example. It's just human error. I admire all the presenters, including Chris, but I've seen him interrupting more than a few times over the episodes. Rear Admirals never really retire I suppose, bless him.
For one, my dad would've likely been stationed elsewhere, he was in 144 Squadron who were Coastal Command and tasked with low level bombing runs on German shipping in the Norwegian fjords.
I think they should have explored the option of Churchill not taking over in the right time at the right moment, if Chamberlain had stayed prime minister it is highly likely the Allies and Germany would have made some kind of negotiated peace.
The vast amount of money and troops saved. Being able to shift to the Pacific theatre. No middle east campaign. French forces have more time to mobilize, and industry to spool up.
Any grand strategy game I play, early commitment of 3-5 infantry divisions by Britain, along with some naval air power presence in Skagerrat renders Norway a disaster for the Germans.
@@nathanwaldrop3723 I don't know if I'd put faith in the results of hoi4 as they're too easily exploited. Darkest hour: a mod of hoi2, is to me, is much more realistic, though I acknowledge that may not be the opinion of the hoi4 people. Also in larger scenarios of toaw4 where UK can intervene I've played.
Possible topic for History Undone. What happens if the Japanese succeed with their Milne Bay invasion and capture the airfields on the eastern tip og New Guinea? What impact does that have on the Guadalcanal and New Guinea campaigns.
The British didn’t win but they did destroy most of the non-battleships of the German surface navy. Churchill didn’t have a method of getting troops safely to Norway in time. German fighters couldn’t make the round trip to England so their slow underarmed bombers seldom made it back to Norway.
Churchill may have been a great leader of the country and certainly better than Halifax who wanted to do a deal. That said can anyone let me know of any occasion when Churchill's intervention at the tactical/operational level was helpful? His orders at the start of WW1 were unhelpful, EG Coronel, the Goeben and his use of the RND in Antwerp was a disaster.
German invasion of Sweden would not have been that easy, and it would have stopped any chance at iron ore, Sweden was prepared to blow the mines and had ships set to sink in the harbors.
@@PeteOttonnot really. For example, when Sweden mobilized in response to the invasion of Norway, they found that their entire stock of anti-aircraft ammunition would allow all guns to fire for one minute.
Roald Dahl would not have been removed from Fighter duties and would mot have worked with Ian Fleming , perhaps "Matilda" and "Chitty chitty bang bang "would not exist .
@@paulbishop251smaller than literally any other capital ship in the world. The next smallest were the 12" guns of USS Arkansas. The Germans hadn't used 28 cm guns on a battleship since the Nassau class of 1907.
Because their design follows the German philosophy of battlecruisers: battleship armor, cruiser speed, and main armament somewhere between heavy cruisers and battleships.
@@hailexiao2770 They weren't design as battlecruisers. They are fast battleships. The D-Class were Large Cruisers. The only reason they had 11-inch guns is because the 15-inch guns were not ready for them and the operational situation meant they never had time to re-arm them until 1943, and by one was sunk and then Hitler grounded the capital ships.
If asked, the Norwegian CF was proof that Britain wasn't ready. A lack of what if planning, readiness and communication allowed the German invasion. Once gained, it's problematic to re take with scant resources.
Getting a heavy cruiser sunk by a flipping _shed_ is Russian level sea warfare. Having said that, letting an aircraft carrier get within gun range of an enemy capital ship isn't exactly from Corbett's blinkin' book, and no mistake.
A british/allied win in Norway would undermine Chamberlain's appeasement strategy. A victory would have proven that action was required, and could be achieved without grievous losses Chamberlain's government fell when Poland was invaded, any excuse could be used after that
It's basically impossible for the Norwegians to do that without active German cooperation. Oslo Fortress had a few experienced officers and a bunch of new conscripts, so they weren't even able to load the third 28 cm gun. What was pecking at Lutzow were 57 mm guns from the smaller fortifications. Killing Lutzow would have required reloading the 28 cm guns, and probably the torpedo batteries as well, but those torpedoes were ancient weapons that could barely reach out two thousand yards.
One factor you guys completely missed is the Norwegian merchant marine navy, which was quite substantial in 1940. After the Germans became aggressors, that fleet became at the disposal of the Allies. If the British/French had been the aggressors that situation may have changed.
6:12 This reminds me of the Intracoastal Waterway, which runs the US Atlantic coast from Massachusetts down to Florida, then around all the way around the Gulf of Mexico to Brownsville TX.
Radio traffic from the floating lighthouses and other observation posts in Denmark became so busy on April 7th, 8th and beginning og 9th that they were told to stop reporting. Listening to the radio traffic would have provided a clue.
If the Norwegian armed forces had mobilized and prepared 6 months in advance, just like the Finns did before they were attacked by the Soviets, then the Germans would not have succeeded.
Would not have mattered in the long run. John Burgoyne was cut off from Montreal and incapable of supplying his army with food and ammunition. Burgoyne's army was doomed the instant that it left Ticonderoga in July 1777 and lost its communications with its main base in Montreal.
The Brits could never have blocked the Skagerrak. German air power would have made mincemeat of any ships trying to do so. The latter fates of Prince of Whales and Repulse show what happens to warships when the enemy controls the air space.
That would assume the allies would not deploy aircraft to Norway. HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse were caught outside of aircover, so the results are not quite equivalent.
The home fleet would have deployed aircraft carriers to cover the other ships. Also the luftwaffe had no torpedo bomber units at this time and if their stuka squadrons performance off Dunkirk and later in the channel is anything to go by they wouldn't be sinking any ships in large numbers.
@@ro.stan.4115 they also had HMS Ark Royal,HMS furious,HMS Eagle & HMS Hermes. Oh and it's funny I can't seem to remember the luftwaffe sinking a single battleship,battlecruiser or aircraft carrier in ww2 ...but yes they would have destroyed the entire home fleet in the skaggerak lol
The reason why Germany invaded Norway was England was going to invade Norway in order to cut off iron ore supplies to Germany. Germany knew it so they preemptive their invasion before England did
If the Germans had never bothered to invade Norway, they would’ve had another 300,000 soldiers for Barbarossa against Russia that were occupying Norway. If Germany hadn’t bothered sending Rommel and the Afrika Korps to fight against Montgomery in North Africa and not sent divisions into Serbia, the Balkans and Crete. They would’ve beaten Russia easily and won WW2.
No because they couldn't supply more troops. Throwing more divisions at the soviets would just make the already terrible supply situation worse. It could maybe have made a small difference but not in the way you think.
300,000 foot sloggers walking at 3 km/h aren't going to make much of a difference in Barbarossa. That was always a logistics and speed limited operation.
There was no chance Germany was going to lose. IF England and France had done better, it would have just delayed Norway's fall. And if England and France were still fighting there, Germany might have had an even easier time taking France. This is a pretty nonsensical premise.
A large chunk of The kriegsmarine surface fleet was destroyed in Norway. If the campaign would have continued Germany would not have been able to reinforce or supply the troops already in Norway due to British naval supremacy. Oh and it's not England 🏴 fighting the campaign it's the UK 🇬🇧
@@tigerland4328Luftwaffe would have total air superiority. Like in Crete where RN was not able to prevent Crete from falling. Skaggerak is no place for RN capital ships.
Harsh. There's plenty of cities in the US, particularly the south, where the police department is bigger and better armed than the Danish army. And if Uvalde's anything to go by, considerably less courageous.
Wasn't the French supposed to join us in the Norwegian campaign ? What I find distasteful about those chairborne warriors , none of them have ever faced or made world changing decisions , with the exception of Parry who's took part in the Falklands , not quite the same as WW2.. All the leaders among the combatants in WW2 made errors of judgement , often made with haste because of pressure.
You seem to accuse historians of being historians instead of military men and politicians. Bit weird. And as for making errors under pressure and limited information everybody is aware of it. The side that makes less errors wins.
There were French troops in Norway. About three brigades of mountain troops, and naval forces consisting of two cruisers, nine destroyers and other ship.
Fantastic to work with Adm Parry and the History Undone crew once again :)
Love your work with Parshall as well!
You two have a great rapport which is a pleasure to watch.
I must praise the machine spirit for making sure i saw Drach on any other channel he is mentioned on. Love the Admirals insights
Thanks for being the resident expert for other channels. It's so useful to have a walking encyclopedia on hand.
We love the team you guys make!
I am a simple man - I see Drach, I click, I like.
Ditto. I'll watch the video later 😊
He looks like Michael Lonsdales’s Drax
Drach army. Wait. Drach navy.
@@BishopStars Drachship
DRACH IS the sea for our time.
We need Drak and the Admiral to do an episode on the Falklands
There are some great lectures from the Admiral on the Falklands action.
Maybr there is some romantization, but it is very nice when the Admiral explains why he could only use one "ping" to find the argentinian sub.
@@mustavogaia2655 Where's that?
Watch this space…
@@mustavogaia2655 It wasn't one ping, it was one sweep!!
@@richardvernon317some say ping, some say pong. Anyway, I stand corrected. Thanks
Glad to see Drach on the show once more
Drachinifel for PM! ( yeah American, don’t know how UK elections work )
Drach!!! I watch anything he’s in! 🌊
I concur
Drach and Rear Admiral Parry (Ret.) my favorite guest. EXCELLENT comments. Thanks
My Friday is not complete until I watch the latest History Undone. Love the work of all with this show, especially Adm. Parry.
Another excellent 'what if' episode. Just a couple of items for the panel to consider: (a) it's bad form - and interrupts the flow of dialogue - for a panel member to interrupt and correct a trivial error by another (looking at you Chris!); (b) I'd also have liked longer expositions by Drach - again, uninterrupted by Chris! - and; (c) a few more visual aids besides maps would add value to the overall accumulation of data, key, critical events and time eg add a calendar etc. Otherwise well done and I look forward to more episodes. I always thought that British intelligence vis-a-vis the Baltic in early 1940 was appalling bad if not outright negligent; it ought to have been tracking German shipping - merchant and kriegsmarine. Surely it had coastal spies in eastern Denmark & southern Sweden too?
Yes, I sensed some tension between them after Chris interrupted to correct Drach. Chris could've let Drach finish speaking and then addressed his error in a more polite fashion. His interruptions continued throughout. I've seen Chris mis-speak a few times on the show, referring to the Germans when he meant the Allies for example. It's just human error. I admire all the presenters, including Chris, but I've seen him interrupting more than a few times over the episodes. Rear Admirals never really retire I suppose, bless him.
Great episode y'all. thanks
More Drach and the Admiral, plz!!
Calling Operation Sea Lion a "palliative" to a no longer relevant Kriegsmarine might be the most savage burn in military history.
Another really good episode, but James' insistence on not saying the word "German" borders on the ridiculous.
Vote of appreciation for Drach's almost-a-submariner's-Jumper - very stylish :)
Excellent analysis
Great content. Keep it up
Excellent episode as always. Small suggestion: What about using animated, digital maps?
For one, my dad would've likely been stationed elsewhere, he was in 144 Squadron who were Coastal Command and tasked with low level bombing runs on German shipping in the Norwegian fjords.
Another great show. 😊
Not a fan of one guest interrupting another, shows a lack of respect, Drach is worthy of respect, give him some.
Another problem is that Norway kept milliatry spending verry low during the 30s, so we where not well prepared at all.
Scharnhorsts were undergunned battleships. Just a thought
Quite interesting discussion. Thank you.
I think they should have explored the option of Churchill not taking over in the right time at the right moment, if Chamberlain had stayed prime minister it is highly likely the Allies and Germany would have made some kind of negotiated peace.
The vast amount of money and troops saved. Being able to shift to the Pacific theatre. No middle east campaign. French forces have more time to mobilize, and industry to spool up.
Is there an affiliated link for Drach seawothy sweaters?
Drach, wait what?!? I'm watching now
There used to be an award for pipe smoker of the year. Is there one for knitwear?
It adds to my presumption that unlike, say, Dave Gilmour, Drach doesn't live in a houseboat on the Thames, but rather a house sub.
Any grand strategy game I play, early commitment of 3-5 infantry divisions by Britain, along with some naval air power presence in Skagerrat renders Norway a disaster for the Germans.
Hoi4?
@@nathanwaldrop3723My first thought. Currently running through as Finland
@@nathanwaldrop3723 I don't know if I'd put faith in the results of hoi4 as they're too easily exploited. Darkest hour: a mod of hoi2, is to me, is much more realistic, though I acknowledge that may not be the opinion of the hoi4 people. Also in larger scenarios of toaw4 where UK can intervene I've played.
My Grandfather was taken prisoner at Narvik after his ship was sunk.
Possible topic for History Undone. What happens if the Japanese succeed with their Milne Bay invasion and capture the airfields on the eastern tip og New Guinea? What impact does that have on the Guadalcanal and
New Guinea campaigns.
The British didn’t win but they did destroy most of the non-battleships of the German surface navy. Churchill didn’t have a method of getting troops safely to Norway in time. German fighters couldn’t make the round trip to England so their slow underarmed bombers seldom made it back to Norway.
Biggest navy in the world at time didn't have a method to get troops to neighbouring country on time? Funny
Churchill may have been a great leader of the country and certainly better than Halifax who wanted to do a deal. That said can anyone let me know of any occasion when Churchill's intervention at the tactical/operational level was helpful? His orders at the start of WW1 were unhelpful, EG Coronel, the Goeben and his use of the RND in Antwerp was a disaster.
Hey! Did James not get the memo that Drach is now an author? Fix your intro Jimmy!
German invasion of Sweden would not have been that easy, and it would have stopped any chance at iron ore, Sweden was prepared to blow the mines and had ships set to sink in the harbors.
Wasn't Sweden much better armed than Norway as well? And no more Bofors guns to Germany, not even the bad ones.
@@PeteOttonnot really. For example, when Sweden mobilized in response to the invasion of Norway, they found that their entire stock of anti-aircraft ammunition would allow all guns to fire for one minute.
@@kemarisite I hope they corrected that!
@@kemarisite They gave a ton of ammo to Finland as well as a good number of AT and arty.
Back in Drach. So I'm back.
Roald Dahl would not have been removed from Fighter duties and would mot have worked with Ian Fleming , perhaps "Matilda" and "Chitty chitty bang bang "would not exist .
I still don't think anyone has provided a good explanation of why this was such a surprise; the bodies are buried too deep.
If only Eric Grove had lived to take part as well. There might have been on screen wine drinking too 🙂
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau are both classed as Scharnhorst-class battleship. So why is there any debate about them being battlecruisers? 31:14
Mainly because their main battery size of 11"/280MM is relatively small for a capital ship.
@@paulbishop251smaller than literally any other capital ship in the world. The next smallest were the 12" guns of USS Arkansas. The Germans hadn't used 28 cm guns on a battleship since the Nassau class of 1907.
Because their design follows the German philosophy of battlecruisers: battleship armor, cruiser speed, and main armament somewhere between heavy cruisers and battleships.
@@hailexiao2770 They weren't design as battlecruisers. They are fast battleships. The D-Class were Large Cruisers. The only reason they had 11-inch guns is because the 15-inch guns were not ready for them and the operational situation meant they never had time to re-arm them until 1943, and by one was sunk and then Hitler grounded the capital ships.
If asked, the Norwegian CF was proof that Britain wasn't ready.
A lack of what if planning, readiness and communication allowed the German invasion.
Once gained, it's problematic to re take with scant resources.
Interesting but the audio makes Drach sound weird.
Hey. Check out Drak all big time and famous. Looking good, mate.
Come for the Norway, stay for the Drach.
Getting a heavy cruiser sunk by a flipping _shed_ is Russian level sea warfare.
Having said that, letting an aircraft carrier get within gun range of an enemy capital ship isn't exactly from Corbett's blinkin' book, and no mistake.
A british/allied win in Norway would undermine Chamberlain's appeasement strategy.
A victory would have proven that action was required, and could be achieved without grievous losses
Chamberlain's government fell when Poland was invaded, any excuse could be used after that
What If #2...
Lutzow also blows up, Is taking Oslo still viable?
It's basically impossible for the Norwegians to do that without active German cooperation. Oslo Fortress had a few experienced officers and a bunch of new conscripts, so they weren't even able to load the third 28 cm gun. What was pecking at Lutzow were 57 mm guns from the smaller fortifications. Killing Lutzow would have required reloading the 28 cm guns, and probably the torpedo batteries as well, but those torpedoes were ancient weapons that could barely reach out two thousand yards.
….”underwater torpedoes”….? 😅
One factor you guys completely missed is the Norwegian merchant marine navy, which was quite substantial in 1940.
After the Germans became aggressors, that fleet became at the disposal of the Allies.
If the British/French had been the aggressors that situation may have changed.
The Low Countries were invaded on May 10th, not May 18th.
6:12 This reminds me of the Intracoastal Waterway, which runs the US Atlantic coast from Massachusetts down to Florida, then around all the way around the Gulf of Mexico to Brownsville TX.
What if Hitler decided he didn't really like mustaches and went clean shaven?
The "Heroes of Telemark "movie would not exist today, I could live with that.
Something Something Something kamchatka...
Something Something Something torpedo boats?!?
Something Something Something *throws binoculars*
Something Something Something *Russian cursing*
Too many ads
Right way Forbes would get a statue
Radio traffic from the floating lighthouses and other observation posts in Denmark became so busy on April 7th, 8th and beginning og 9th that they were told to stop reporting. Listening to the radio traffic would have provided a clue.
I'd completely agree in spite of the fact the Swedish mining town "Kiruna" is not mentioned even once to the best of my hearing.
The iron ore from Sweden is mentioned several times in the video.
If the Norwegian armed forces had mobilized and prepared 6 months in advance, just like the Finns did before they were attacked by the Soviets, then the Germans would not have succeeded.
What if the British had won the Battle of Saratoga in 1777?
Would not have mattered in the long run. John Burgoyne was cut off from Montreal and incapable of supplying his army with food and ammunition. Burgoyne's army was doomed the instant that it left Ticonderoga in July 1777 and lost its communications with its main base in Montreal.
The Brits could never have blocked the Skagerrak. German air power would have made mincemeat of any ships trying to do so. The latter fates of Prince of Whales and Repulse show what happens to warships when the enemy controls the air space.
That would assume the allies would not deploy aircraft to Norway. HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse were caught outside of aircover, so the results are not quite equivalent.
The home fleet would have deployed aircraft carriers to cover the other ships. Also the luftwaffe had no torpedo bomber units at this time and if their stuka squadrons performance off Dunkirk and later in the channel is anything to go by they wouldn't be sinking any ships in large numbers.
*it's Wales 🏴 not whales 🐳
@@tigerland4328deploy Glorious with 10-20 biplane Gladiators to provide CAP for the fleet against bf-109? Funny
@@ro.stan.4115 they also had HMS Ark Royal,HMS furious,HMS Eagle & HMS Hermes. Oh and it's funny I can't seem to remember the luftwaffe sinking a single battleship,battlecruiser or aircraft carrier in ww2 ...but yes they would have destroyed the entire home fleet in the skaggerak lol
The reason why Germany invaded Norway was England was going to invade Norway in order to cut off iron ore supplies to Germany. Germany knew it so they preemptive their invasion before England did
If the Germans had never bothered to invade Norway, they would’ve had another 300,000 soldiers for Barbarossa against Russia that were occupying Norway.
If Germany hadn’t bothered sending Rommel and the Afrika Korps to fight against Montgomery in North Africa and not sent divisions into Serbia, the Balkans and Crete. They would’ve beaten Russia easily and won WW2.
No because they couldn't supply more troops. Throwing more divisions at the soviets would just make the already terrible supply situation worse. It could maybe have made a small difference but not in the way you think.
300,000 foot sloggers walking at 3 km/h aren't going to make much of a difference in Barbarossa. That was always a logistics and speed limited operation.
But it didn't
There was no chance Germany was going to lose. IF England and France had done better, it would have just delayed Norway's fall. And if England and France were still fighting there, Germany might have had an even easier time taking France. This is a pretty nonsensical premise.
A large chunk of The kriegsmarine surface fleet was destroyed in Norway. If the campaign would have continued Germany would not have been able to reinforce or supply the troops already in Norway due to British naval supremacy. Oh and it's not England 🏴 fighting the campaign it's the UK 🇬🇧
@@tigerland4328Luftwaffe would have total air superiority. Like in Crete where RN was not able to prevent Crete from falling. Skaggerak is no place for RN capital ships.
@ Air power dude; Stukas would make quick work of shipping.
Norway among top 3 bravest in WW2 if not 1. Strange as next door you had 2 of the biggest surrender monkies in Denmark and Dutch
Harsh. There's plenty of cities in the US, particularly the south, where the police department is bigger and better armed than the Danish army.
And if Uvalde's anything to go by, considerably less courageous.
I take you are from the land which brought us the distasteful term "surrender monkeys". Land of loud-mouthed armchair warriors.
Bovaer is harsh and unscientific. Yet both those countries are feeding our cattle with that shite. And our kids drink most milk. So f' them.
The Dutch fought bravely in the Netherlands east indies against the Japanese.
Denmark is flat as f, there is no way to defend Denmark no matter how brilliant you are.
Irrelevant,
Wasn't the French supposed to join us in the Norwegian campaign ? What I find distasteful about those chairborne warriors , none of them have ever faced or made world changing decisions , with the exception of Parry who's took part in the Falklands , not quite the same as WW2.. All the leaders among the combatants in WW2 made errors of judgement , often made with haste because of pressure.
You seem to accuse historians of being historians instead of military men and politicians. Bit weird.
And as for making errors under pressure and limited information everybody is aware of it. The side that makes less errors wins.
There were French troops in Norway. About three brigades of mountain troops, and naval forces consisting of two cruisers, nine destroyers and other ship.