My dad was a tracked vehicle mechanic with the 4th Armored Division and got critically wounded in the battle of Arracourt. Through a mixup of swapped dog tags he was listed as KIA. He remained in a coma for over a year. While in an Army hospital he was not expected to recover from the coma and was used as a training aid for things such as x-rays. One day however he did wake up to a young nurse checking in on him. He said, "Well, hello there!" The poor nurse, accustomed to the many days of silence from dad was so startled she fell out in a dead faint. Dad said he always felt bad about that and a few days before he died said he was going to get to apologize again to her. Slipping back into a coma from the ravages of cancer he passed on his 70th birthday in 1979. Due to the countless x-rays he endured he was supposedly sterile. My older brother and I proved that he beat the odds again. Cheers Terry
@hoalanho LOL! No. He probably would have done better with her though. He did marry a war bride though. A brit that came home with someone else. Cheers Terry
My uncle was in the Army Air Corps as a door gunner in B-17 Flying Fortress in missions over Germany. Dad was a merchant marine that was at Guadalcanal. I grew up and heard many war stories over a deer hunting campfire of many different engagements on sea, land and air and was captivated by their heroism and adventures. I saw the men showing each others shrapnel wounds and sharing stories. I respect all those that signed up and joined the war on the front or as support. It was a time of need and they stepped up. Thank you guys.
Funny my grandfather only talked about the war once with me. His story was of killing some POWS a few days after he landed on Juno beach it was not him who did the killing it was witnessing the killing.
*I want to encourage you too share these stories you heard while sitting around the campfires with your Father & Uncle... Sadly these stories may be lost to time if people do not write them down &/or at the very least, share them somewhere so there can be a archive & your family members, along with all other men & women who fought for America & Her Allies in WWII... Even the German men & women who fought need to share their stories, even though they were the "Bad Guys"..... We need to share them & archive them because Father Time comes for us all & we will lose these stories in time if they are not shared... Make sure to tell the fam, thank you for your service... it's one of the GREATEST HONORS that one can have when fighting for America.*
No such thing as the Army Air Corps in World War II. The Army Air Corps ceased to exist in July 1941 when it was replaced by the U.S. Army Air Force which became the U.S. Air Force in 1947.
Dad was 4th Armored. He was in the CCB, which Abrams commanded, later in the war. He saw it all, from Utah Beach, the Normandy breakout and Operation Cobra,to Arracourt, to the relief of Bastogne, the liberation of the Ohrdruf concentration camp and the link up with the Red Army. The Fourth made a lot of history.
One year my friend I know a man who fought with the Australian Army at Sidi Barani Dec1940 Greece Syria Tobruk El Alamein over to New Guinea 20 battles there and then home in 1945 almost six years
@@robertmorwell5052 I have saved your name to my files. I still have my dad's book from boot camp, your father may very well be in it. When I can get it out I will get in contact. Cheers Terry
My Dad was a tank Commander of a Mk4 Sherman in WW2, he fought through Italy, including Monte Cassino. Previously he had fought the Italians and then the Germans in Greece until we got our arse kicked to Crete and then kicked again by the German Fallschirmjager. He then fought Rommels troops until he was wounded in Operation Crusader! He then became a Tank Commander with the 2nd NZEF 20th Battalion; a famous Battalion!
If Freyberg had committed his reserves at Maleme airfield, it would have been a great victory but he bottled it and lost the Allies the Island of Crete.
@@mac2626 You may well be right Mac, my own dad has said as much and he was at Meleme airfield, he had two Gerries as Prisoner and used them as a shield to get over the end of the runway, a sniper tried to get him, got the Bren Gun Mag on his chest and the whole Mag exploded, Dad survived and after that the Germans were a lot more compliant. My dad fought with Charles Upham, both were in the famous 20th Battalion; a South Island Battalion from New Zealand. My Mum and Dad, along with Charles Charlie Uphman and his wife Molly caught up with the Gerries in Munich in 1981 for the 40th Anniversary of Crete. The Fallschirmjager gave the Kiwis a great welcome. My dad fought them twice, once in Crete and then again in Monte Cassino. My Parents had a great night and the hospitality was great. They all missed fallen comrades.....war is so stupid... Putin has learnt nothing from WW2 with his insanity in Ukraine, Putin is the new Nazi I'm afraid!
@@robertmiller2173 Great story and yes , Putin is a mad dog that needs to be put down.. hopefully someone close to him can get it done before all of Russia and Europe is a war zone.
Patton is another great American unfairly maligned by his enemies and (even then) an all too willing media … Read Killing Patton for a good intro to the man and the suspect way he died
Patton had all he needed to fight. How would he fair against a enemy with the same supplies, weapons and support. Not so well. Look at what happened to Monty.
Good video. In reading the 2 volume set of The Patton Papers, he states many times that tanks should not fight tanks. Rather, tanks work with infantry to gain ground and air support and tank destroyers destroy enemy tanks. A great read also is his battle diary book "War as I Knew It", published after his death in 1946 by his widow Beatrice Ayer Patton.
From my understanding the tank destroyers played a large part in the battle. Though thinly armored and an open turret, they were fast, highly maneuverable and carried a hell of a punch
@@waynehewett4017 Not only that but the German tank destroyers were slow and limited, Most had very little traverse on their guns making it so they had to be almost perfectly lined up to make the shot. They only made 800 of the Jagdpanzer IV's, Not enough to kill 48,000 Sherman mark 4's. Why Hitler refused to get behind the Stug III development is a surprise because it did very well against allied armor.
@@cheswick617 Hitler was a nut case , if he had keep out of the development and planned of the armour and let people do thier job They would have made alot more of the armour that worked and was cheaper to make But against 50 thousand Sherman's and 70 thousand T 34 s Plus all the other armour plus no control of the skies I don't think making more tanks would have made any difference especially in 43 44, and 45
@@waynehewett4017 they didn't have the fuel necessary for more tanks to begin with. Hell a report from the Germans own ministry even suggested demotorization in order to make up for fuel shortages
This was also at a time Patton's crews were an experienced lot and a well-oiled machinery and the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel for crews and were forced to cut down on training to scramble whatever they could to fight a two-front war. The experienced crews were either dead, busy fighting on the Eastern Front or had to command these kids. Napoleon faced the very same problem following his 1812 campaign in Russia. While he could largely replace the losses in manpower he most definitely couldn't remedy the lack of experience in his fresh troops as the whole backbone of his battle-hardened and experienced Grande Armée lost 380,000 men by the time he left Russia. Many of those had been fighting with him since the glory days of 1800-1809. The point being. Inexperienced soldiers won't perform too well against seasoned veterans. Good equipment or not.
My father served in the 14th Armored Division and had one brief encounter with General Patton. As the division was moving through northern France, preparing to cross the Rhine, they passed a knot of officers observing their progress. Some days before, my dad had liberated a large copper hip bath from the ruins of a German headquarters. My father was a fastidious man, and was looking forward to taking a long soak, and had tied the hip bath down on the back of his Sherman. As his tank slowly moved past the officers, they spied the shiny copper tub, and pointed it out to General Patton, who stood up from his Jeep and shouted, "Get that god-damned tub off my tank!" Patton's order was followed, of course, and my dejected father wouldn't get a bath until the end of the war.
It has been some time now but I met a 4th Armored Div soldier at my church, He told me how they marched/drove their armor to relieve Bastogne where my Uncle Sargent Edward Sayles was serving with the 101st Airborne during the Battle.
Everyone tends to forget that who fires first tends to win in tank battles. The defender usually gets to fire first. In most battles it was the M4 attacking dug in Panzers. Hence the higher casualties of American tankers. But as you can see in the battle of Aracourt, with the M4's defending the carnage was the other way.
Makes sense. I've heard so many stories about how inferior the Shermans were, but I've always thought that may be true, but exaggerated. German tnaks may have been better in a tank on tank only battles, but as the Germans themselves demonstrated early in the war, that's NOT what war is all about. Allied air power and combined arms warfare in general carried the day.
@Justin Time the Sherman could penetrate any German tank from the side. The most numerous tank the Sherman went up against was the Panzer IV and it had not problem penetrating those. The Sherman could not penetrate the Panther or Tiger from the front at long ranges. However, in a closing fight, where the Panther is advancing through fog, the 75mm was able to achieve penetrating shots. Because of Speed and radios, the Sherman was able to pin any number of Panthers down and achieve those flanking shots, not to mention the 90mm armed tank destroyers that could be used to penetrate anything the Germans had. I recommend you check out the chieftain's chat on this topic. As to the T62 hull down with a M1A2 clearing a berm at close range (the underbelly of the M1A2 exposed) you would have a kill shot, every time.
During the last 2 years of WW2 this rule of thumb was placed on hold by the German heavy tanks. They required tactics, movement and a lot of shooting to take down. Thankfully they were few in number. The standard Panzer 4 vs M4 this rule of thumb still applies, but During the Battles for Lorraine it was the only time that there were more Panthers than Panzer 4s. The he who shoots first wins rule comes into its own During the early cold war periods as first shot first hit ratios really climbs fast over WW2 statistics. Most doctrines of WW2 frowned upon firing on the move as it greatly diminished your first hit probability. There were field commanders that preached against stopping. This was to reduce losses and uses another rule. He who puts the most lead down range wins the fire fight.
@@jamesevans886 there weren't enough heavies around to matter. The heavies had high attrition rates just getting to the battle. A king tiger's gear box was horrendous. The most successful "tank" the German's had, and the one that killed more allied tanks than anything else was not a tiger, kin tiger, or panther. It was the Stug. Dug in, just waiting for fresh targets.
@@magnashield8604 Thanks for the reply. When Patton's 3rd Army moving north for the battle of the Bulge on a bend in the road a single dug in STuG held Patton up for nearly 6 hours. While the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank at the time nearly everyone else more correctly classified the near 50 ton Panther as a heavy. Being the 3rd most produced WW2 German tank please include that in your considerations. The German Armoured divisions were rare about half of establishment level but at least a third of the operational tanks where Panthers, usually the STUG was in greatest number followed by the Panzer 4. With the exception of the battles for Lorraine with the Panzer brigades where the Panther out numbered the Panzer 4. The STuG and its variants is my favourite assault gun in WW2. My next favourite after that is the Panzer 4 /70 tank hunter which could be seen as a 2nd generation STuG. Again thanks for the reply as so few do.
This history video is very good. I believe adding animated maps at appropriate points to make the progress of the battle more clear would make it a great historical video. Please give it a try.
I served 3 years with 1st Battalion, 37th Armor at Katterbach, Germany 1971-1974. The same unit that relieved 101st Airborne At Bastogne. Unfortunately, we were just there to slow down the Russians if they came through the Hof Gap. Courage Conquers! Best Job I ever had. 3 “Hots”, a Cot, and 2 four button suits. Mickey Mouse boots and trigger finger gloves. A 50 caliber is a heavy son of a bitch. The sleeping bags kept you warm when out on maneuvers at Graf, Hohenfels, or Tennenlohe. I had a great heater in my APC. It also worked as a stove to heat up C-ratios. 50 years ago. We were all young and dumb.
While stationed at Ft Knox I went to an Armor conference. Patton's son, also a General officer, was the guest speaker. He mentioned that his father related to him that artillery won the war and provided an anecdote that a formation of 100 German tanks massed and attacked. After a US DIVARTY 3 FFE mission on the enemy, only two German tanks were operable. This is why artillery is called King of Battle. Infantry is called the Queen of battle because the queen tells the King where to put his balls.
Roughly at minute 4:20, the description of the M4 tank reminded me of the movie, "Kelly's Hero's" and the character Oddball strategizing on how to take on the Tiger Tank.
'To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.' Gotta love that movie! If you can't find it? Make a deal ! A deal deal!
Reading one of the comments, the "grizzled veterans" of the Fifth Panzer Army were the remnants of the 11th and 21st Panzer Divisions. The "inexperienced" troops were the newly constituted panzer brigades which had no business fighting the veteran Third Army. Had von Mantueffel, the 5th Panzer Army commander, had his way he would have dissolved the panzer brigades and distributed the troops amongst the veteran but depleted panzer divisions.
"No business fighting the veteran Third Army." Stupid comment: you field the army you have not the imaginary one you wish you had. Should Hasso have retreated and refused to fight? He did his best with what he had.
@lee wood you are right but the "stupid one" was Adolf Hitler since he was the "stupid one" who created the independent panzer brigades instead of funneling the men and equipment into the panzer divisions. Hasso von Manteuffel used the brigades but the Americans chewed them up and wiped out a lot of tanks the Germans could have used better. From the historical perspective, we are lucky Hitler wasted those resources since they helped hasten the German defeat in the West.
@@leewood331 Not a stupid comment at all. What Manteuffel feared came to pass and those Panthers were wasted. It was Manteuffel who later broke through in the Battle of the Bulge whereas the better equipped but more poorly trained SS formations largely failed.
Agreed. The Title is click bait. Pattons formations did not defeat ''Hitlers best Panzers at Arracourt'' , rather the shattered and reformed remnants of previous fighting.
I'm calling Bulshit on that! There is no way an airplane with a shaped-charge firing infantry weapon was more successful in one mission than were most actual purpose-built Allied CAS planes with the same kind of weapons. If you said he scared the Panzer 5's into retreating after seeing a forward observation aircraft light up a fuel truck then maybe but this??? Nah.
@@groofromtheup5719 Okay. Here we go. Firstly, thank you for the information on top armor. I am well-versed in the armor makeup for tanks from their first appearance on the battlefield to today and I was hoping the "shaped-charged" component of the bazooka round would be enough to explain my skepticism regarding this claim. Yes modern, laser-guided or wire-guided projectiles can be programmed to attack up and then straight down on the thinner, flatter top armor but since a shaped charge infantry weapon fired by an airplane, jerry-rigged to use these inaccurate weapons has a snowballs chance in hades to hit the target AND land flat enough for the shape-charge to effectively deploy (due to distance, angle of attack, lack of a target reticle, etc.) I doubt this plane outperformed Typhoons, P47's and really any other CAS purpose-built aircraft on a single mission like this. In fact, when the militaries went to confirm actual CAS kill claims against tanks the numbers were far less impressive than reported. Believe what you want but the facts belie the claims. That said, this guy had balls the size of the planet Mercury even trying this crap in a sloooooow, unarmored, observation aircraft
My grandfather was part of Patton's 3rd battalion!!! He went from the end of africa into italy and stayed till the end! He was definitely there! Thank you for posting this
If he was in Africa, he wasn't in the 3rd Army. 3rd Army was not activated until July 1944 and only fought in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, and Austria.
One of the few chances for such doctrine to be used, as it was arguably poorly conceived in the first place. Only the combination of fog/German lack of recce resources and poorly trained German personnel allowed the 'high mobility/shoot-and-scoot' US Tank Destroyer tactics to really come into their own, and only then with disproportionately high losses.
Shoot and scoot wasn't really how they were intended to be used. The speed was important so they could rapidly secure important terrain while laying in ambush. Only the he'll cat had the acceleration needed to attempt shoot and scoot.
@@alfnoakes392 Amazing how everytime the subject is a German defeat guy's like you list a bunch of excuses, never mind the fact that everyone was fighting in the same exact conditions and that the Germans being on the defense had knowledge of the terrain and the lay of the land as opposed to the Allies who were in a land and it's terrain for the first time, it's always easier to defend an area you already occupy as opposed to advancing across it. They just plain got their asses handed to them, no two ways about it.
Duke Craig, Its still true that the panzer brigades at Arracourt were green, poorly trained and didn't even have any organic recon elements. Panzer Brigade 111 didn't even receive its Panthers to train on until the 5th to 7th September. What can you learn in just over a week? The panzer brigades were desperately flawed and hastily formed units in an attempt to get some armoured units to the front to plug the gaps while the panzer 'divisions' were being rebuilt after the losses of Normandy and Bagration.
Saying the Panther could penetrate the Sherman's armor at 2000 meters is meaningless. While that meant something on the vast grasslands of the Russian steppes where kills could be made at great distances the terrain in the west was different and the average distance on the long side was 350 to 750 meters. For this reason tactics were much different, and great numbers of Allied tanks worked together at close range to take out the German heavies.
Not to mention the M4 was reliable and 87% of all the ammunition they consumed was of the HE variety. That HE round was excellent by the way, much more effective than the HE rounds of the high velocity guns, including our own 76mm.
The western allies still lost around 3 tanks for every 1 German tank lost in combat 1944/45. Around 50% of German armour losses were not to direct combat. Mean combat range in Western Europe was 850 metres.
@@lyndoncmp5751 And how many Allied tanks weren't lost to direct combat? Everyone always does that when plugging away for their favorite fanboyism, like all the guys who swear that the Germans made the best fighter's, they present the total number of 8th Air Force bombers lost and try to attribute them all to German fighter's, they never subtract the ⅓rd that were lost to accidents and then also subtract number shot down by flak, but when you bring up an honest number like the 56th Fighter Group shooting down German fighter's at a rate of 8 to 1 in their P47's they always try to come up with some nonsense excuses like the Germans not having any experienced pilots, yea, they didn't after mid 1944 because of the 56th Fighter Group having shot down all their experienced pilots by D-Day. I spent Easter weekend of 1984 when I was stationed in Germany at the home of a German family that the father was a tanker in WW2, we were told never to bring up the war with the German people because it was considered bad manners but after finding out I was a crewman on an armored vehicle that guy was just tickled pink and was acting like we were fraternity brothers, the Schnapps flowed, I still have a hangover from that one, so I didn't think it'd be inappropriate to ask if what I'd heard growing up about the German tanks being so much better than ours was true, he literally balked at the suggestion, his very words were "I'll tell you what was superior, the number of Sherman's is what was superior!!! When there's only one or two of you and 10 to 15 Sherman's come rolling over the hill it was only going to end one way and we knew it!!!". He said they spent most of their time running from the advancing Allies and when they got pushed back across the border into Germany him and his crew made an agreement, as soon as they ran out of fuel or ammo they'd abandon the thing and look for the first American unit to surrender to that they could find, and he attributed the fact that he was alive in 1984 to them having done just that, running from the advancing Allies then abandoning their tank and surrendering. You hear the stories about Sherman crews having "Tigerphobia", well take it from someone who got it straight from the horses mouth the German tank crews had Shermanphobia just the same, and the one's that didn't died.
"Saying the X could penetrate the Xs armor at 2000 meters is meaningless." Said no tanker ever. The excuses for the Sherman are reaching new heights. Short ranges were common in the US sector of Normandy, which faced very few panzers until the later stages of the campaign anyway. The ranges were longer in the Commonwealth sector, which faced the vast majority of the panzers. Once the war moved into Germany, the landscape opened up and long range combat was very common.
I grew up on a military base, did the ROTC thing, served in the Gulf War as a civilian safely behind the lines. I had a father and several uncles who served in WW2. Not all made it home. Those who did had unseen wounds for the rest of their lives in addition to some purple hearts As an old man now, I'm only now capable of their hardships, sacrifice, and sometimes broken relationships and lives. They have all passed on. The least I can do now is stand for the anthem, respect our flag, and love the greatest country in human history ... and support the current warriors who risk everything to uphold the traditions of those that served before them, and their families, spouses, children, siblings and parents whom often waited word of their warriors, not knowing.
I've read 3rd Army history; Pattons biographies and 4th Armoured history. Patton was a genius. He let his senior officers have the freedom to make their own Tactical decisions on the fly. He was a believer in Mission Command. I also own Patton's Air Force book. His relationship with General Otto Weyland of 19th Tactical Air Force was legendary. The best use of combined armoured and air power of World War 2. His relationship with General John Wood commander of 4th Armoured is legendary. Wood was nicknamed "Tiger Jack" because when Patton and Wood argued. Wood would pace in front of George while they barked and roared at each other funny considering they were close friends. Patton and 3rd Army have a rich and colorful history. "A SOLDIERS LIFE" goes in depth into why 3rd Army was so effective. It's loss ratios showed its sophistication in battle planning to control casualties to a low standard. In fact as something little known it was a self sustaining enterprise with a General of finance.
read a more in depth regarding this battle, advantage American and French armored forces because they had reconnaissance, troops like M5 stuarts and M8 Greyhounds and PIPER cubs, air support consisting of P47 white the germans was fighting blind blubbering into ambushes from M18 hellcats and towed AT guns and 105mm Artillery. this is were the French captured gobs of Panthers. The book is Patton vs Panzers Battle of Arracourt by Steven Zaloga
12:26 bazooka joes plane was found and restored. it was a flying club shared plane. when restored and rededicated the daughter of the pilot was there. its on display some where
Thank you for the video, and a great explanation of this little known battle! I do a little bit of wargaming with Mike armor and I am usually the Germans. I have seen this battle in one of our books, but we have not got the play it because I don’t have enoughminiature painted yet. Now I’ll be looking forward to see if I can change history.
The M-4 Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank. The Sherman was not designed originally to fight other tanks That was the job of the M10 and M18 tank destroyers. Two my Uncles were infantry in the ETO. They both said the Sherman’s were great supporting them. Both my uncles were each decorated for taking out a German tank, (I heard this from their VFW buddies ) turns out in my one Uncles platoon a dozen men were decorated for taking German tanks using non traditional methods.
A 76 mm gun was quite able to knock out any tank. Even a tiger. It was a serious gun. Shermans were designed on the chassis of the Grant, because that chassis existed and there was no time to dev another, and this meant mass production would not be delayed. The chassis also way highly customizable for variants needed. They had to be able to fit on US trains, and transport easily packed together on ships. Also they had to have great gas mileage and speed, work in all weather, and be easily repairable in the field. All these things meant that a dependable tank with anti troop and anti tank ability was available in large quantity for deployment - where it as needed, when it was needed. In Normandy the US had by bad luck mostly Sherman's with 75mm guns, not 76, and the unexpected hedgerow country to move through. Basically in the case of the Sherman 76mm, whomever got the first shot off would be the likely winner of the encounter. Notably the reputation of the Sherman as a 'firetrap' is a myth. Any tank hit would burn. The high number of burned Shermans was due to the fact that the Germans would burn any knocked out tank, to ruin it and avoid it being repaired. Also US crews were supported by the fact that Shermans had dedicated spring loaded escape hatches for each crew member, which greatly increased ones chances of survival when needed. The American crews did much better surviving knocked out tanks than their contemporaries because of this.
bruh, that was a common myth, technically, if they were meant to be an infantry support tank, what the hell they do if the German tank firing at the infantry? run away and call the HQ to send the TDs? also remember that the M3 75mm on the M4 was basically the same caliber brought from the M3 GMC tank destroyer
@@trantuananh7541 Thank you, I'm really not sure where people get this idea that the Sherman was never meant to fight tanks. Why would we design a tank with a powerful gun and not have it fight other tanks. While it's true it was primarily used in the doctrine of supporting infantry it was still designed to take out enemy tanks when needed, most notably the Panzer IV which the 75mm/76mm were great at.
The Battle of Aauracourt never fails to impress me. I know the mobility of the Sherman was excellent for its time but with respect to the armor and and armament of the Sherman when compared to the German tanks it's like taking a knife to a gunfight. Patton and his subordinates did a hell of a job being seriously out gunned and outnumbered. Creighton Abrams was a hell of a tank Commander under Patton. Think it was maybe James Woods hard against the Germans there. Major props to third army.
Hardly. Sherman tanks had many soft advantages that doesn't show up on hard stats like a fast turret traversal, good crew ergonomics, fast target acquisition due to stabilizer and gunner wide FoV sight, etc. In reality Sherman tanks traded against Panthers at a 1:1.1 ratio, which is very impressive when you consider panther is a much heavier and more expensive tank and Germany was mostly on the defensive. Also most German tanks at the time were panzer IVs and various assault guns which were strictly worse than the Sherman tanks.
Sherman’s could fire while moving, Germans had to stop and fire. The US tank ammo was also better. Many German tank ammo were dudes or were even dangerous to fire.
@@gamesguy Check the stats, almost half tehGerman armored losses were caused by P-47's. I think the US was very glad to have preety much uncontested air superiority at the time.
Late 1991, near an Air Force base in the US: A group of A-10 pilots are telling each other stories of destroying tanks in Iraq. Nearby, an aged grey-haired man in a well-worn leather jacket smiles into his scotch.
Reading these stories of Patton make me smile. That man was made for this war, and was the key force behind American tank doctrine. Such a shame he lost his cool a few times.
Had a next door neighbor who died last year at age 106. He served in Patton s 3rd armyin Ww2. When I asked him about. Patton once, he said. Patton was an aho,but a pm so a genius. He said no other general could've pulled off what Patton did during the battle of the bulge
Years ago I got to talk briefly with a 3rd army veteran, a customer at the store I was working at. I asked him his opinion of Patton, and he said, trying to quote from memory, "Patton ran us hard, but with Patton we got shit done," his face beamed with pride as he said it. I could tell from how he said it he probably resented how hard he pushed them at the time, but as the results of their hard work became apparent with so many victories, he came to really respect and appreciate the method to Patton's madness. He was one of a kind.
Patton was a sumari like warrior and had little respect for people he viewed as cowards. He didn't ask his troops to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. When serving with General Pershing in Mexico he had a gunfight with Mexican bandits in a coral.
Actually he had very little to do with the development of American armor doctrine. Adna Chaffee was far more influential than Patton in the development of American armor doctrine. Patton got famous primarily because he swore a lot in front of reporters and he was in the right place at the right time more often than not. He also had a good eye for talent when it came to his staff officers.
Patton was an average US general, like Simpson, Patch, Hodges, etc. No more. "The Allied armies closing the pocket now needed to liaise, those held back giving way to any Allied force that could get ahead, regardless of boundaries - provided the situation was clear. On August 16, realising that his forces were not able to get forward quickly, General Crerar attempted to do this, writing a personal letter to Patton in an attempt to establish some effective contact between their two headquarters and sort out the question of Army boundaries, only to get a very dusty and unhelpful answer. Crerar sent an officer, Major A. M. Irving, and some signal equipment to Patton’s HQ, asking for details of Patton’s intentions intentions and inviting Patton to send an American liaison officer to the Canadian First Army HQ for the same purpose. Irving located but could not find Patton; he did, however, reach the First Army HQ and delivered Crerar’s letter which was duly relayed to Third Army HQ. Patton’s response is encapsulated in the message sent back by Irving to Canadian First Army; ‘Direct liaison not permitted. Liaison on Army Group level only except corps artillery. Awaiting arrival signal equipment before returning.’ Irving returned to Crerar’s HQ on August 20, with nothing achieved and while such uncooperative attitudes prevailed at the front line, it is hardly surprising that the moves of the Allied armies on Trun and Chambois remained hesitant." - Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944 Patton refused to liaise with other allied armies, exasperating a critical situation. "This advance duly began at 0630hrs on August 18 which, as the Canadian Official History remarks,16 ‘was a day and a half after Montgomery had issued the order for the Canadians to close the gap at Trun, and four and a half days after Patton had been stopped at the Third Army boundary’. During that time, says the Canadian History, the Canadians had been ‘fighting down from the north with painful slowness’ and the Germans had been making their way east through the Falaise gap. They were not, however, unimpeded; the tactical air forces and Allied artillery were already taking a fearful toll of the German columns on the roads heading east past Falaise. Patton’s corps duly surged away to the east, heading for Dreux, Chartres and Orléans respectively. None of these places lay in the path of the German retreat from Normandy: only Dreux is close to the Seine, Chartres is on the Beauce plain, south-east of Paris, and Orléans is on the river Loire. It appears that Patton had given up any attempt to head off the German retreat to the Seine and gone off across territory empty of enemy, gaining ground rapidly and capturing a quantity of newspaper headlines. This would be another whirlwind Patton advance - against negligible opposition - but while Patton disappeared towards the east the Canadians were still heavily engaged in the new battle for Falaise - Operation Tractable - which had begun on August 14 and was making good progress." - Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944 Instead of moving east to cut retreating Germans at the Seine, Patton ran off to Paris. John Ellis in Brute Force described Patton's dash across northern France as well as his earlier “much overrated” pursuit through Sicily as more of “a triumphal procession than an actual military offensive.” Patton at Metz advanced 10 miles in three months. The poorly devised Panzer Brigade concept was deployed there with green German troops. The Panzer Brigades were a rushed concept attempting to plug the gaps while the proper panzer divisions were re-fitting and rebuilt after the summer 1944 battles. The Panzer Brigades had green crews with little time to train, did not know their tanks properly, had no recon elements and didn't even meet their unit commander until his arrival at the front. These were not elite forces. 17th SS were not amongst the premier Waffen SS panzer divisions. It was not even a panzer division but a panzer grenadier division, equipped only with assault guns not tanks, with only a quarter of the number of AFVs as a panzer division. The 17th SS was badly mauled in Normandy and not up to strength at Arracourt in The Lorraine. Patton's Third Army was almost always where the best German divisions in the west were NOT. ♦ Who did the 3rd Army engage? ♦ Who did the 3rd Army defeat? ♦ Patton never once faced a full strength Waffen SS panzer division nor a Tiger battalion. In The Lorraine, the 3rd Army faced a rabble. Even the German commander of Army Group G in The Lorraine, Hermann Balck, who took command in September 1944 said: "I have never been in command of such irregularly assembled and ill-equipped troops. The fact that we have been able to straighten out the situation again…can only be attributed to the bad and hesitating command of the Americans." Patton was mostly facing a second rate rabble in The Lorraine. Patton was neither on the advance nor being heavily engaged at the time he turned north to Bastogne when the Germans pounded through US lines in the Ardennes. The road from Luxembourg to Bastogne saw few German forces, with Bastogne being on the very southern German flank, their focus was west. Only when Patton neared Bastogne did he engage some German armour but not a great deal at all. Patton's ride to Bastogne was mainly through US held territory. The Fuhrer Grenadier Brigade was not one of the best German armoured units with about 80 tanks, while 26th Volks-Grenadier only had about 12 Hetzers, and the small element of Panzer Lehr (Kampfgruppe 901) left behind only had a small number of tanks operational. Patton did not have to smash through full panzer divisions or Tiger battalions on his way to Bastogne. Patton's armoured forces outnumbered the Germans by at least 6 to 1. Patton faced very little German armour when he broke through to Bastogne because the vast majority of the German 5th Panzer Army had already left Bastogne in their rear moving westwards to the River Meuse. They were engaging forces under Montgomery's 21st Army Group. Leading elements were engaging the Americans and British under Montgomery's command near Dinant by the Meuse. Monty's armies halted the German advance and pushed them back. On the night of the 22 December 1944, Patton ordered Combat Command B of 4th Armored Division to advance through the village of Chaumont in the night. A small number of German troops with anti tank weapons opened up with the American attack stopping and pulling back. The next day fighter bombers strafed the village of Chaumont weakening the defenders enabling the attack to resume the next afternoon. However, a German counter attack north of Chaumont knocked out 12 Shermans with Combat Command B retreating once again. It took Patton almost THREE DAYS just to get through the village of Chaumont. Patton's forces arrived at Chaumont late on the 22nd December. They didn't get through Chaumont village until Christmas Day, the 25th! Hardly racing at breakneck speed. Patton had less than 20 km of German held ground to cover during his actual 'attack' towards Bastogne, with the vast majority of his move towards Bastogne through American held lines devoid of the enemy. His start line for the attack was at Vaux-les-Rosieres, just 15km southwest of Bastogne and yet he still took him five days to get through to Bastogne. In Normandy in 1944, the panzer divisions had been largely worn down, primarily by the British and Canadians around Caen. The First US Army around St Lo then Mortain helped a little. Over 90% of German armour was destroyed by the British. Once again, Patton faced very little opposition in his break out in Operation Cobra performing mainly an infantry role. Nor did Patton advance any quicker across eastern France mainly devoid of German troops, than the British and Canadians did, who were in Brussels by early September seizing the vital port of Antwerp intact. This eastern dash devoid of German forces was the ride the US media claimed Patton was some sort master of fast moving armour. Patton repeatedly denigrated his subordinates. ♦ In Sicily he castigated Omar Bradley for the tactics Bradley's II Corps were employing ♦ He accused the commander of 3rd Infantry Division, Truscott of being "afraid to fight". ♦ I n the Ardennes he castigated Middleton of the US VIII Corps and Millikin of the US III Corps. ♦ When his advance from Bastogne to Houffalize stalled he criticised the 11th Armoured Division for being "very green and taking unnecessary casualties to no effect". ♦ He called the 17th Airborne Division "hysterical" in reporting their losses. After the German attack in the Ardennes, US air force units were put under Coningham of the RAF. Coningham, gave Patton massive ground attack plane support and he still stalled. Patton's failure to concentrate his forces on a narrow front and his decision to commit two green divisions to battle without adequate reconnaissance resulted in his stall. Patton rarely took any responsibility for his own failures. It was always somebody else at fault, including his subordinates. A poor general who thought he was reincarnated. Oh, and wore cowboy guns. Patton detested Hodges, did not like Bradley disobeying his orders, and Eisenhowers orders. He also hated Montgomery. About the only person he ever liked was himself. Read: Monty and Patton: Two Paths to Victory by Michael Reynolds and Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies by Harry Yeide
37th Tank Battalion not Regiment. Only the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions had Armored Regiments during the war as they were still configured as "Heavy" Divisions under the original TO &E. All other U.S. Armored Divisions were reorganized in 1943 and had 3 Tank Battalions instead of 2 Armored Regiments.
I'm a tank buff love is my army tanks and the video really enlightening me on a lot of things that I just presumed to be and maybe not but I thank you for the video I enjoyed it thank you so much
OMG, and he's flying in a scout plane that's basically a kite with a propeller in front! The man had incredible courage and desire to strike at the enemy.
Very good facts about Patton, American general. " I don't care what color you are just kill those SOB s , " said Patton... He was born in southern California of French heritage. Good details on this battle and of the war ! 🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
@@thomaswaynewardPatton's family in Southern California was fabulously wealthy which made George independently wealthy. He became frustrated with obtaining replacement parts for his trucks when training troops so ordered them over the telephone from a Sears catalog then had them shipped by priority mail by train to get them a day or two later.
@@protonneutron9046 Which records? The ones that showed that the M4 was the most survivable tank of WWII? Or maybe the records that showed the 75mm gun was the most effective against the most common threat to US tank? Or maybe the records that proved the M4 had a 1:1 exchange rate with Axis tanks? Or the records that proved the M4 was incredibly reliable, durable and capable of being deployed to all theaters of the war?
Not generally remembered today, the US 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions were "elite". The US Armored Divs mastered the combined arms concepts very quickly and had Commanders who were adaptable, flexible, agile, and aggressive. These commanders and their men skillfully used their tanks, TDs, arty, and infantry to defeat larger, better equipped, and more experienced German units.
Also, the Armored Infantry Battalions of the ADs don't get enough love or acknowledgement from historians who focus on the tanks, missing the fact that most of the tanks destroyed were knocked out by the AIBs and TD detachments.
To FactBytes. This is wrong on so many counts. You must not spread false information. For the battle, German units assembled 262 tanks and assault guns. The German force initially comprised two panzer corps headquarters, the 11th Panzer Division and the 111th and 113th Panzer Brigades. The experienced 11th Panzer Division was short of tanks, having lost most of its complement in earlier fighting. Although the two panzer brigades had new Panther tanks, they were manned by fresh crews who had only received two weeks of training and could not read maps appropriately. The need to quickly respond to the sudden advance of the 4th Armored Division and a fuel shortage left the crews with little time for training and little proficiency in tactical maneuvering in large, combined arms operations. Combat Command A (CCA) under Colonel Bruce C. Clarke of the U.S. 4th Armored Division in XII Corps consisted of the 37th Tank Battalion, the 53rd Armored Infantry Battalion, the 66th and 94th Armored Field Artillery Battalions and the 191st Field Artillery Battalion. Also present were elements of the 35th Tank Battalion, the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion, the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, the 25th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, the 24th Armored Engineer Battalion, and the 166th Engineer Combat Battalion. The 5th Panzer Army outnumbered CCA in tanks and was equipped with Panther tanks, superior to American M4 Sherman tanks in frontal armour protection and main gun range, countered by the U.S. tanks' faster turret traverse and stabilized guns. In close air support, U.S. forces enjoyed an overwhelming advantage. Earlier sorties by U.S. fighter bombers caused some German panzer units to fail to arrive in time for the battle, as they were damaged or destroyed in separate encounters with other Allied forces. Regarding the battle itself, everything can be read on Wikipedia for those who are interested in the truth. Shame on you Factbytes.
When you think about it, tactics really saved the day. We went against the germans with equipment that was a step below their tank specs. We had the speed advantage but sherman armor and guns weren't quite matching up to those Panzers. BUT our boys got it done.
What’s the difference?…by this time Pattons army was a well groomed , victorious well oiled war machine led by a decisive general…..by this time the German army was a shadow of its victorious 1941 version…..also allied air superiority was total.
Quite right. By 1944 Germany was also getting severe shortages in trained troops while fuel stocks were barely enough to reach the divisions much less be enough for sustained offensives. The vast Eastern Front ate up most of Germany's supply chain and manpower. Speaking of the Eastern Front, following far higher than expected casualties for the *Germans* in the winter of 1941 the German high command was forced to graduate a whole batch of officer one year in advance. The batch of officers which would otherwise have been the graduating class of 1943 became a not-fully-trained-and-educated class of 1942. Needless to say with 50,000 to 60,000 KIA every *month* in the second half of 1943 it's no wonder the nazis began re-classifying former part-Jews (just one Jewish great-grandparent was enough to be considered non-German) as Germans and the SS even granting all kinds of people "aryan status" - heck, including a Bosnian Muslim SS division (Handschar). When you're desperate to fill your ranks even nazis will be flexible with their former so rigid "racial laws". Here's also something which some people don't consider. In June 1940 there were 142 German divisions in France. In June of 1944 there were 66 German divisions in France. That's less than half their numbers 4 years before. At the same time there were 192 German divisions on the Eastern-Front stretching from Finland to Romania in June 1944. This is taken from AxisHistory and official German war records. As for Patton. He was vicious but old Blood'n Guts also sacrificed a lot of American lives for his victories. But the way he argued there was "way more where that came from". Manpower shortages wasn't something the US Army would be facing anytime soon... He'd be remembered as another Douglas Haig had the Germans been of the same quality and quantity in 1944 as they had been in 1940-1941.
I did not know of any of this history. American ingenuity combined with battle hardened troops "Fire and Maneuver" techniques won the week-long battle. Well done US Army soldiers !
Being an armchair warrior 70+ years later, here's my 2 cents. Eisenhower prolonged the war buy giving the gas and supplies to Monty. Market Garden failed and the Germans were able to horde equipment for Watch on the Rhine.
At the time of operation market garden the Siegfried line was largely a hollow shell. It had been stripped of most of its troops and much of its artillery to go to the Eastern front. By the time they gave the fuel back to the third Army the Germans had reinforced and re-equipped the Siegfried line to a high degree. Had that same force of paratroopers, fuel and ammunition been given to third Army we would have been in Germany largely out of those and possibly ended the war. There's a memoir I can't remember the name of the book itself but the writer is a German general Von Mellethin. That book will tell you exactly what was facing the third Army at the time.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographerI think operation market garden was so poorly planed because of the resistance they took in France past Normandy which was nothing I the allies thought Germany was done and were ignorant to the fact Germany had been preparing to hold where they were for a while.
@@ilikeships9333 market garden was like designing a traffic jam. Look at how many troops were going to advance essentially down to two lane road. I believe they had a corps involved in the advance down the two lane road. That's about 20,000 men, add to that over a thousand vehicles in tanks. Not to mention people are shooting at them from either side of that road. The ground to either side of that road was not suitable for armor it was too waterlogged. I feel Montgomery and Browning failed to account for the intelligence that was indicating there was more strength there than they thought or assumed. And then when they were right at the cusp of taking the the last Bridge they stopped. Granted their infantry was still fighting behind them while the armor was waiting for them, but why not advance with a new infantry unit?
The Germans were getting increasingly short on trained men at this stage of the war so they cut down training to the basics, employed kids and had little to no time to prepare them for real battle. The nazis had the idea that sheer will and German spirit would overcome any deficiency. More level-headed German commanders knew this spelled doomed for Germany and millions of killed and wounded Germans. German logistics were also lacking throughout the war (this weakness was never really remedied following the early years of the war when victories were took mere weeks and didn't reveal this) but by the final year of the war it got from worse to disastrous. During the Battle of the Bulge many Tiger II and Panther tanks simply ran out of fuel and never had any fuel trucks (or fuel depots conquered) assist them. A tank might be the most amazing tank designed ever but without fuel it's going nowhere and is nothing more than a glorified pillbox.
Was present at a 1987 brief to Armor Advanced Course students -- read captains -- by Arracourt veterans on a terrain model led by Jimmie Leach, a company commander in CCA Kind of unbelievable today.
@@SheffieldBankManagement for every German tank there were several allied tanks. So, they could hit the German armor from all directions, but yes they were superior in firepower and protection. They were just outnumbered.
@@wisconsinfarmer4742 He lead his tank forces in an up-armored Jumbo Sherman tank that could even absorb some of the dreaded 88 AT rounds frontally. The US should have made more Jumbos than they did.
not really much harder and heavier to transport in the holds of ships - over 3500 miles. And the shermans were quicker,dependable and parts interchangeable
@@goldleader6074jumbos were too heavy, they were overloaded like late model panzer IVs and could hardly perform a cross country march or climb obstacles.
@goldleader6074 Nope, his personal tank was a standard M4A3E8 "Easy 8" with a 76mm gun. The Jumbos were assault tanks and there were never enough built. Slower and less maneuverable than standard Shermans and only equipped with the 75mm gun.
For decades the Sherman got a bad rap due to a lot of wrong assumptions and misunderstandings about tank warfare in general during WW2. While the Russian T34 was defintely it's rival for the best tank of WW2, all things considered the Sherman was the all around best. Easy to manufacture, load and unload on and off ships, narrow enough to cross the narrow bridges of Europe, easy to maintain and repair, very reliable, highly manuverable once it got moving and a hell of a lot easier to gear shift, move around inside of and bail out of, than the T34. The fact is that the Panther's side armor was about the same thickness as a Sherman. Ambushes were typically set up to attack from the side or rear which meant that there wasn't any clear advantage of Panzer or Panther tanks over the Sherman in that regard; a Panther wouldn't protect you from a well placed shot to its side armor any better than a Sherman. Sometimes the Sherman's tall profile is brought up as weakness because it was easier to hit, but captured German tank crews said this gave Sherman crews an advantage in spotting them. Early detection of the enemy and the Sherman's speed and mobility many times meant the difference between life or death in those situations. At Arracourt, Sherman crews performed brilliantly by leveraging the Sherman's strengths such as maximizing the 75mm pea shooter to great effect at close range.
@@brennanleadbetter9708Yep, it really was. There were a multitude of versions. Gotta love how the Brits crammed that 17 pounder into it. German tank crews feared the Firefly.
What's more, the Sherman's 75 had a high rate of fire, up to 25 rounds a minute (so I'm told.) You throw enough metal at a Tiger and something is bound to stick.
@@chrisschultz8598 This is a really good point. While the Sherman needed the entire continent of Europe to turn from a dead stop, with an even minimal amount of speed it could whip turns on a dime. It's turret rotation rate was faster than anything the Germans had as well. When you combine that with its high rate of fire, it's not surprising that U.S. tankers got better at killing Tigers and Panthers as the war ground on. So what it essentially came down to for the 75mm was having the right ordinance. While HE rounds were highly effective against troops or unarmored artillery pieces, they would bounce off of a Tiger even at closer ranges - except perhaps a perfectly placed shot in the rear of the tank at very close range. But at the right range and angle, an AP round fired from a 75mm could penetrate Tiger armor. Even if didn't penetrate all the way though it could at least be like a grenade going off inside the tank. That's because German steel was inferior to American steel. It was more brittle than U.S. steel so even if a round didn't penetrate all the way through, the impact could cause shards of steel to splinter off inside the tank and really screw up the day for the Tiger crew.
Your thumbnail is an M36 tank destroyer. "Armor vs Panthers: How Patton's Third Army Tanks, Tank Destroyers and Artillery Crushed Hitler's Best Panzers at Arracourt." FTFY
Sometimes 'grizzled veterans' can get a little too grizzled and suddenly you have a formation almost completely composed of replacements. CCA on the other hand were veterans too, and hadn't taken so many losses. Equipment matters, but less than the users.
No one does well with inexperienced tank crews (most of the Germans) fighting against highly experienced veterans (the USA units) who also have air superiority over the battlefield. In fact, it's pretty much hopeless in the long run (as was the whole German strategic situation by that point in the war). However, kudos to Patton's troops, who clearly handled the situation very effectively. A well conducted defense all around.
The Western Allies had Air Supremacy over the battlefields not superiority. (And George would have handled things even better had Ike not squandered resources on Monty's ego.)
lee wood None of Patton's resources were squandered on Montys ego. Market Gardens resources came from British stocks, and Market Garden was still the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Patton had already been failing against Metz for a week before Market Garden was even green lit. Patton's Lorraine campaign was a miserable failure. 4 months to move barely 50 miles, with nearly 55,000 combat casualties? The Lorraine was the biggest allied failure of autumn 1944.
@@leewood331 Crap It was NOT Patton who Ike asked to straighten the Bulge but Montys 21st Army group and Hodges and Simpkins were assigned to Monty. Hodges did not like it Simpkins got on well with Monty.
The M4 was not only not a bad tank, it was actually a pretty darn good tank. America built a lot of them, and got them, along with crews, parts, ammo, fuel, mechanics, to battlegrounds all over the world. Enough of them to help win the war.
It definitely gets a bad rap, it did it's job well given the circumstances. It was much more reliable than German and Soviet tanks, kept crews alive unlike Soviet tanks, and it was relatively easy to produce, transport, and supply across the oceans. Most of the issues were mitigated by upgrades as the war went on.
Parts were interchangeable between the M4 production runs. The front final drive housing would fit onto any M4 chassis. The turrets were drop in fits into any M4 chassis. The M36 turret was first used in M4'S that were repaired in France when labor problems prevented further production of the M10 chassis. The Army shipped over 29 M36 turrets after instructing Ford to set M36 turrets on their new M4'S coming off the production line then redo the ammo bins outside the plant.
Look at the success they had, and the fact that they stayed in use updated by Israel for the next 50 years, reliable and plentiful, two things the Germans couldn't say...
I agree. I was in the tank corp in the 50's stationed at Ft. Knox Ky. At that time we had the M48 Patton. 90ml and a 50 cal. machine gun. Fortunately we were never called to Korea. The M48 was a good tank for its time. Had several upgrades from the M47. The tank and it’s crew was only as good as the tankers who were assigned to them. The same with all the new high tech fighter planes. They are only as good as the pilots flying them.
Enjoyed it! Thank you for this. Btw, Arracourt is a French word and should be pronounced as "Arra-coo". Same with all the other names that end in 'court'.
Does anyone know the story behind the clip near the beginning which shows the American jeep on fire? I have been looking for that one for quite awhile.
Great subject matter, great video. What you narrated at the end ... "superior mobility ... provided a decisive edge to the defenders" ... pretty much sums up the competitive advantage of the US military in general: besides our always-superior technology, our mobility usually guarantee USA victories against any enemy. Unfortunately our enemies don't always grasp our many superiorities and get into wars with us anyway. Then they make many mistakes which guarantees their loss. China and Russia and North Korea take note: don't even try it.
You mean like Vietnam or Afghanistan? You had the advantage of superior tech, mobility and overwhelming firepower, but you still lost. Not on the field, but where it really matters, which is in the public sphere. The greatest weakness of the US military is the humble body bag. Too many of them returning on those overseas flights, will turn all but the most ardent warmonger against conflict. You can have all the tech in the world, but if your people don't want to fight, then the fact you are a 'democracy' will work against you. If the USA was a ruthless dictatorship, you wouldn't have to worry. But you aren't. I don't think any sovereign nation is stupid enough to directly attack you. So, if you engage an enemy, you're going to be the aggressor, and with the instantaneous spread of information now, something like the Iraq invasion will be seen for the lie it is. Hostile nations know the best way to hit you, is in your pockets. It'll be economic and cyber warfare that will be used against you, because the leadership of these nations aren't stupid.
@@georgelazenby3607 Good points George. As to ruthless dictatorship ask Pootin how well that's worked for him? As to cyber warfare we're fine. It's the pandemics from China I worry about. But take a look at how that did not really hurt us economically. hmmm, maybe we try regime changes in the hostile countries! yeah, that's the ticket
Sorry ruby your nationalistic bullshit seems to have run away with your logic. Listen to the narrator. It's not often you will find an American source who relays it as honestly as this one. The German forces technology was beyond US capabilities. He repeatedly tells us the German forces were scracth units full of rookies with a lack of logistics including fuel. The US forces engaged performed magnificently - I doubt many will deny that. The question should be asked however how did the US army get itself into this position in the first place - to be so worried by an inferior force (no matter their tanks were technologically streets ahead of the US equivalent they were scratch understrength and would have been easy meat for the US forces had they been better deployed and not left themselves open to such attack - that is not good battlefiled management tactics - I'll leave you to call it what you will - I will merely say it was rash and once more underestimated the enemy. Nobody did scratch, cobbled together, hastily constructed attack or defence than the German Army - they were masters of it and the US leadership must have been aware of it having fought from N Africa, through Italy, then into Southern and Northern France yet they sill fell foul of it. Both here and at the Bulge. Patton was just not as good as his PR flunkies would wish him to have been. He outran his logistics and his abilities. Though his ego would never admit to such of course.
Eure immer (US?)" überlegene Technologie" im WW II ?? Ihr hattet ja noch nicht einmal ein richtigen Motor für eure Blechdose von Sherman. Mein Vater sagte damals, die US-Panzer konnte man mit einen Dosenöffner knacken. Ihr seid immer so Grosskotzig, und glaubt, das ihr das "Warme Wasser", oder den "tiefen Teller" erfunden hättet. In Wirklichkeit, habt ihr nur alles von den Deutschen "abgekupfert".
@@scaleyback217 During this exact time period (Sept 17th) Operation Market-Garden was going on up North in and around Holland and was being prioritized the Allies limited logistics due to inadequate port facilities on mainland Europe after the invasion a few months prior. I seem to remember that Market-Garden was planned and implemented in only 7 days, so perhaps 3rd Army was not given much notice that their logistics were to be diverted elsewhere and had to halt wherever they were until adequate logistics arrived in order to continue major advances.
My uncle was Patton's car driver and as the war was over he was released only to learn a new driver was involved in a car accident that eventually precipitated Patton's death.
When you say patton Sherman tanks verse panther tank, you left out one other vital ingredient the 19th tactical airforce group they protected patterns Flank and blasted everything in front of him, so you could say it was two against one
Shane Tharle, I was thinking the same. It's been interesting to hear about German tank losses from breakdowns, fuel shortages, etc. However, I wonder how many were due to allied aircraft attacks? Something that the allies themselves didn't really need to contend with from early to mid 1944 onwards. BTW, one if my two uncles who fought in WWII flew Hurricanes and P47's during the war. Obviously in later times, he would have been involved mainly in ground attack. That's why your same comment came to mind.
What helped out the US tankers during that battle were their tanks ability to be driven at top speed for long periods of time without breaking down. That allowed them to race ahead of advancing Panzers to take advantageous positions to shoot down at them from the tops of hills. Others raced behind their lines to surprise from from the rear where they shot up as many as possible before taking off to safety.
Allied tanks had no advantages in speed and where significantly less mobile off-road, in particular over soft ground and mud where tanks like the Sherman's narrow tracks and primitive suspension was a major tactical weakness.
The 75mm would frequently bounce off the panzers, as the panzers had thicker frontal armour. That is why the u.s would hit them in the track areas. When the m26 pershing came out with the long barrelled 90mm gun. They didnt really get a chance to use them. But they had a few that worked really well. When the north korean ( russian) tanks came up against some pershings. The pershings shot through both sides of the russian tanks.
I had a debate with a guy over why the Germans he believed were better army even though they lost in one of the reasons why he brought up was that they would counter-attack after their enemy was exhausted so they cannot dig in. This is an example of them doing just that but with the worst possible result.
German army doctrine was to be more adaptable and more flexible, with more initiative by NCOs and lower down etc. Its staggering how they still managed to put up a tough fight against 3 world super powers all at the same time. No other army could have done this. The combined allies had 3 or 4 times as many troops, 4 or 5 times as many tanks etc. Then add in allied air support and more or less unlimited supplies in comparison. Still, it's their own fault. Hitler and co shouldn't have bitten off more than he could chew.
One of the biggest problems for historians with the battles fought in Lorraine of which Arracourt was one of several battles is that both sides exaggerated the number of kills made. So such so one of the Panzer brigades were declared destroyed twice and was still operational. Also with the coming of the fall rains things deteriorated on the battlefield as the medieval drainage systems had been choked off from earlier fighting. So it was easy for a tank to become hopelessly bogged. This affected the green crews of the Panzer brigades who became reluctant to leave the road ways. On a few engagements Panthers were caught broadsides and in this position even the standard short barrel 75mm of most Sherman tanks could easily penetrate the hull sides of the Panther at range. During this phase of the battle the light M5 Stuart tank came into its own getting a reputation of being mud runners. So much so the 4th Armoured division put the M5 to heavy use relying on this tanks mobility.
Patton’s fuel was diverted? Sounds like Monty again… LOL! If Ike had given Patton a free hand, the war would’ve been shorter and saved lives on all sides!
Monty was winning battles vs. The Germans and rounding up Italians by the tens of thousands before Patton was even in the game. Patton also screwed up Sicily by being too proud to stick to his job of blocking German forces on Monty's left flank. Consequently, the majority of German forces escaped to Italy and made it a "self-sustaining prison camp" for the Allied Forces. Monty also was the Commander on the ground at D-Day. Without Monty, it's doubtful Patton would have even made it onto the Continent. Both commanders screwed up, both had successes. Any other analysis is just Nationalism disguised as history.
@@markrhodes1717 Montgomery was loathed by all his peers and funny you made no mention of his 'brilliance' at Falise Gap let alone ignoring intel prior to Market Garden let's not dig too deeply into his strategic plan swiftly seize Sicily.
Where is evidence of all this "loathing"? Again, at Normandy the British forces faced the best of Germany's SS and Wehrmacht divisions. Falaise Gap was an unqualified success, but mainly because of the superiority of Allied airpower. Sicily is a great example of how Patton's insubordination cost lives. Montgomery was beloved by the British people. That was who he was leading, not his peers. Again, he was defeating Germans and Italians before Americans even entered the War and while half of France still cowered behind the cover of Vichy as collaborators. For a full year the only opposition Hitler received was from the British Empire and her Commonwealth. The world owes those forces a debt of gratitude impossible to repay.
When Patton received the much lamented fuel he wanted, he butted his head up against the Siegfried Line in a bloody campaign whose objective, at least in part, was to save his own son-in-law who had been captured. His boast to go through the Siegfried Line was exactly that, nothing more than a boast, and it took more patient and intelligent commanders to do it later in the War.
@@markrhodes1717 From reading the history in Italy, it seems Monty was too slow to exploit a gap in the Gustav line found by French North African troops and he did not let Freyberg act quickly or on his own initiative. Monty's well known extreme caution gave the Germans time to reinforce Italy's Gustav line and turn the battle into one of months and months of attrition.
Robert Miller, my dad being German was one of those paratroopers and fought like hell at Monte Casino. Fighting for days he was shot twice and had shrapnel wounds. He made it out safely but was caught by the Americans weeks later along the Rhine river. He didn’t talk too much about his army days but it must have effected him later in life. He had a horrible temper and everyone got out of his way when he erupted. He loved smacking the crap out of my brothers, but especially me.
Always had respect for paras no matter which side. Doubt I could jump flack,or no flack. My great uncle was at Cassino with the Desert Rats and always used to talk about Monty and Rommel when I was a kid.
It was a brutal fight at Monte Casino. My dads captain stepped on a land mine and blew both his legs off at the hip. My dad held him like a baby until he died a half hour later. He told my dad… if you ever make it out of here tell my wife and 2 children I love them. 40 years later my dad and mom looked up and found his captains wife. She was so thrilled about what he told her. She died shortly after. They had a huge story about it in the German news and papers.
It was a brutal fight at Monte Casino. My dads captain stepped on a land mine and blew both his legs off at the hip. My dad held him like a baby until he died a half hour later. He told my dad… if you ever make it out of here tell my wife and 2 children I love them. 40 years later my dad and mom looked up and found his captains wife. She was so thrilled about what he told her. She died shortly after. They had a huge story about it in the German news and papers.
The objective was to win. Patton used the guns of battleships to stop the German tanks when he invaded Italy. And Patton had able tank commanders like Woods and Abrams.
And then after this battle Patton totally failed to advance across the Lorraine and get through the Siegfried Line to the Saar, even when he had a whopping 3:1 superiority in men and 8:1 superiority in tanks, plus overwhelming artillery and air support in early November. He still failed, and then blamed Bradley, Eisenhower and even Montgomery who was hundreds of km to the north.
My dad was a tracked vehicle mechanic with the 4th Armored Division and got critically wounded in the battle of Arracourt. Through a mixup of swapped dog tags he was listed as KIA. He remained in a coma for over a year. While in an Army hospital he was not expected to recover from the coma and was used as a training aid for things such as x-rays. One day however he did wake up to a young nurse checking in on him. He said, "Well, hello there!"
The poor nurse, accustomed to the many days of silence from dad was so startled she fell out in a dead faint. Dad said he always felt bad about that and a few days before he died said he was going to get to apologize again to her. Slipping back into a coma from the ravages of cancer he passed on his 70th birthday in 1979.
Due to the countless x-rays he endured he was supposedly sterile. My older brother and I proved that he beat the odds again.
Cheers
Terry
Remarkable. Your dad sacrificed himself in many ways. Thanks for sharing!
The real tragedy of WW2 was that nothing those fought and died for actually happened
All we got was illegal wars and keep away health care
GREAT story! Thanks for sharing that!
Was the nurse your mom?
@hoalanho LOL! No. He probably would have done better with her though. He did marry a war bride though. A brit that came home with someone else.
Cheers
Terry
My uncle was in the Army Air Corps as a door gunner in B-17 Flying Fortress in missions over Germany. Dad was a merchant marine that was at Guadalcanal. I grew up and heard many war stories over a deer hunting campfire of many different engagements on sea, land and air and was captivated by their heroism and adventures. I saw the men showing each others shrapnel wounds and sharing stories. I respect all those that signed up and joined the war on the front or as support. It was a time of need and they stepped up. Thank you guys.
That deserves the biggest award there is for a story off courage and ability.
Funny my grandfather only talked about the war once with me. His story was of killing some POWS a few days after he landed on Juno beach it was not him who did the killing it was witnessing the killing.
*I want to encourage you too share these stories you heard while sitting around the campfires with your Father & Uncle... Sadly these stories may be lost to time if people do not write them down &/or at the very least, share them somewhere so there can be a archive & your family members, along with all other men & women who fought for America & Her Allies in WWII... Even the German men & women who fought need to share their stories, even though they were the "Bad Guys"..... We need to share them & archive them because Father Time comes for us all & we will lose these stories in time if they are not shared... Make sure to tell the fam, thank you for your service... it's one of the GREATEST HONORS that one can have when fighting for America.*
No such thing as the Army Air Corps in World War II. The Army Air Corps ceased to exist in July 1941 when it was replaced by the U.S. Army Air Force which became the U.S. Air Force in 1947.
Dad was 4th Armored. He was in the CCB, which Abrams commanded, later in the war. He saw it all, from Utah Beach, the Normandy breakout and Operation Cobra,to Arracourt, to the relief of Bastogne, the liberation of the Ohrdruf concentration camp and the link up with the Red Army. The Fourth made a lot of history.
One year my friend I know a man who fought with the Australian Army at Sidi Barani Dec1940 Greece Syria Tobruk El Alamein over to New Guinea 20 battles there and then home in 1945 almost six years
@@robertmorwell5052 I have saved your name to my files. I still have my dad's book from boot camp, your father may very well be in it. When I can get it out I will get in contact.
Cheers
Terry
My Dad was a tank Commander of a Mk4 Sherman in WW2, he fought through Italy, including Monte Cassino. Previously he had fought the Italians and then the Germans in Greece until we got our arse kicked to Crete and then kicked again by the German Fallschirmjager. He then fought Rommels troops until he was wounded in Operation Crusader! He then became a Tank Commander with the 2nd NZEF 20th Battalion; a famous Battalion!
A big thank you to him from a Greek
If Freyberg had committed his reserves at Maleme airfield, it would have been a great victory but he bottled it and lost the Allies the Island of Crete.
👍👍👍
@@mac2626 You may well be right Mac, my own dad has said as much and he was at Meleme airfield, he had two Gerries as Prisoner and used them as a shield to get over the end of the runway, a sniper tried to get him, got the Bren Gun Mag on his chest and the whole Mag exploded, Dad survived and after that the Germans were a lot more compliant. My dad fought with Charles Upham, both were in the famous 20th Battalion; a South Island Battalion from New Zealand.
My Mum and Dad, along with Charles Charlie Uphman and his wife Molly caught up with the Gerries in Munich in 1981 for the 40th Anniversary of Crete.
The Fallschirmjager gave the Kiwis a great welcome. My dad fought them twice, once in Crete and then again in Monte Cassino.
My Parents had a great night and the hospitality was great. They all missed fallen comrades.....war is so stupid... Putin has learnt nothing from WW2 with his insanity in Ukraine, Putin is the new Nazi I'm afraid!
@@robertmiller2173 Great story and yes , Putin is a mad dog that needs to be put down.. hopefully someone close to him can get it done before all of Russia and Europe is a war zone.
Thank you for this well-organized presentation of a battle that isn't widely discussed. It's great to see Sherman tanks dishing it out for a change.
It seems nobody has noticed this was done with an artificial voice.
@@GeekBoy03 Because it sounds like a human narrator except maybe with more distinct pronunciation and cadence.
The weather was a great leveller.
No good having the ability to kill Shermans at 2000 yards if you cannot see them
Ignore the haters. Thank you for making this. I enjoyed it. Well done.
My late Father served with Patton through the entire world war 2.he spoke proudly of Patton and his time serving under him.
Patton is another great American unfairly maligned by his enemies and (even then) an all too willing media …
Read Killing Patton for a good intro to the man and the suspect way he died
Patton had all he needed to fight. How would he fair against a enemy with the same supplies, weapons and support. Not so well. Look at what happened to Monty.
@@chelseamartin-ub7fq What’s your point?
Good video. In reading the 2 volume set of The Patton Papers, he states many times that tanks should not fight tanks. Rather, tanks work with infantry to gain ground and air support and tank destroyers destroy enemy tanks. A great read also is his battle diary book "War as I Knew It", published after his death in 1946 by his widow Beatrice Ayer Patton.
yes true... the Combined Arms Army will win the day, rather than pure tank to tank battle.
From my understanding the tank destroyers played a large part in the battle. Though thinly armored and an open turret, they were fast, highly maneuverable and carried a hell of a punch
Germany had tank destroyers too
And the 88 mm gun could take out just about anything the allies had
It's just the Americans and Russians had more
@@waynehewett4017 Not only that but the German tank destroyers were slow and limited, Most had very little traverse on their guns making it so they had to be almost perfectly lined up to make the shot. They only made 800 of the Jagdpanzer IV's, Not enough to kill 48,000 Sherman mark 4's. Why Hitler refused to get behind the Stug III development is a surprise because it did very well against allied armor.
@@cheswick617 Hitler was a nut case , if he had keep out of the development and planned of the armour and let people do thier job
They would have made alot more of the armour that worked and was cheaper to make
But against 50 thousand Sherman's and 70 thousand T 34 s
Plus all the other armour plus no control of the skies
I don't think making more tanks would have made any difference especially in 43 44, and 45
@@waynehewett4017 Yep and they worked!
@@waynehewett4017 they didn't have the fuel necessary for more tanks to begin with. Hell a report from the Germans own ministry even suggested demotorization in order to make up for fuel shortages
Thanks!
Thank you ☺️
This was also at a time Patton's crews were an experienced lot and a well-oiled machinery and the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel for crews and were forced to cut down on training to scramble whatever they could to fight a two-front war. The experienced crews were either dead, busy fighting on the Eastern Front or had to command these kids. Napoleon faced the very same problem following his 1812 campaign in Russia. While he could largely replace the losses in manpower he most definitely couldn't remedy the lack of experience in his fresh troops as the whole backbone of his battle-hardened and experienced Grande Armée lost 380,000 men by the time he left Russia. Many of those had been fighting with him since the glory days of 1800-1809.
The point being. Inexperienced soldiers won't perform too well against seasoned veterans. Good equipment or not.
My father served in the 14th Armored Division and had one brief encounter with General Patton. As the division was moving through northern France, preparing to cross the Rhine, they passed a knot of officers observing their progress. Some days before, my dad had liberated a large copper hip bath from the ruins of a German headquarters. My father was a fastidious man, and was looking forward to taking a long soak, and had tied the hip bath down on the back of his Sherman. As his tank slowly moved past the officers, they spied the shiny copper tub, and pointed it out to General Patton, who stood up from his Jeep and shouted, "Get that god-damned tub off my tank!" Patton's order was followed, of course, and my dejected father wouldn't get a bath until the end of the war.
Being the complete arsehole was Pattons reason for living.
It has been some time now but I met a 4th Armored Div soldier at my church, He told me how they marched/drove their armor to relieve Bastogne where my Uncle Sargent Edward Sayles was serving with the 101st Airborne during the Battle.
Everyone tends to forget that who fires first tends to win in tank battles. The defender usually gets to fire first. In most battles it was the M4 attacking dug in Panzers. Hence the higher casualties of American tankers. But as you can see in the battle of Aracourt, with the M4's defending the carnage was the other way.
Makes sense. I've heard so many stories about how inferior the Shermans were, but I've always thought that may be true, but exaggerated. German tnaks may have been better in a tank on tank only battles, but as the Germans themselves demonstrated early in the war, that's NOT what war is all about. Allied air power and combined arms warfare in general carried the day.
@Justin Time the Sherman could penetrate any German tank from the side. The most numerous tank the Sherman went up against was the Panzer IV and it had not problem penetrating those. The Sherman could not penetrate the Panther or Tiger from the front at long ranges. However, in a closing fight, where the Panther is advancing through fog, the 75mm was able to achieve penetrating shots. Because of Speed and radios, the Sherman was able to pin any number of Panthers down and achieve those flanking shots, not to mention the 90mm armed tank destroyers that could be used to penetrate anything the Germans had. I recommend you check out the chieftain's chat on this topic. As to the T62 hull down with a M1A2 clearing a berm at close range (the underbelly of the M1A2 exposed) you would have a kill shot, every time.
During the last 2 years of WW2 this rule of thumb was placed on hold by the German heavy tanks. They required tactics, movement and a lot of shooting to take down. Thankfully they were few in number. The standard Panzer 4 vs M4 this rule of thumb still applies, but During the Battles for Lorraine it was the only time that there were more Panthers than Panzer 4s. The he who shoots first wins rule comes into its own During the early cold war periods as first shot first hit ratios really climbs fast over WW2 statistics. Most doctrines of WW2 frowned upon firing on the move as it greatly diminished your first hit probability. There were field commanders that preached against stopping. This was to reduce losses and uses another rule. He who puts the most lead down range wins the fire fight.
@@jamesevans886 there weren't enough heavies around to matter. The heavies had high attrition rates just getting to the battle. A king tiger's gear box was horrendous. The most successful "tank" the German's had, and the one that killed more allied tanks than anything else was not a tiger, kin tiger, or panther. It was the Stug. Dug in, just waiting for fresh targets.
@@magnashield8604 Thanks for the reply. When Patton's 3rd Army moving north for the battle of the Bulge on a bend in the road a single dug in STuG held Patton up for nearly 6 hours. While the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank at the time nearly everyone else more correctly classified the near 50 ton Panther as a heavy. Being the 3rd most produced WW2 German tank please include that in your considerations. The German Armoured divisions were rare about half of establishment level but at least a third of the operational tanks where Panthers, usually the STUG was in greatest number followed by the Panzer 4. With the exception of the battles for Lorraine with the Panzer brigades where the Panther out numbered the Panzer 4. The STuG and its variants is my favourite assault gun in WW2. My next favourite after that is the Panzer 4 /70 tank hunter which could be seen as a 2nd generation STuG. Again thanks for the reply as so few do.
This history video is very good. I believe adding animated maps at appropriate points to make the progress of the battle more clear would make it a great historical video. Please give it a try.
The best video I have ever watch concerning WW2.I have never seen so many burning enemy tanks before.
Most of the video is taken in Normandy in the summer of 44, not at Arracourt
I have a book on that battle which is more detailed, but the video hits all the high points. Well done!
I served 3 years with 1st Battalion, 37th Armor at Katterbach, Germany 1971-1974. The same unit that relieved 101st Airborne At Bastogne. Unfortunately, we were just there to slow down the Russians if they came through the Hof Gap. Courage Conquers! Best Job I ever had. 3 “Hots”, a Cot, and 2 four button suits. Mickey Mouse boots and trigger finger gloves. A 50 caliber is a heavy son of a bitch. The sleeping bags kept you warm when out on maneuvers at Graf, Hohenfels, or Tennenlohe. I had a great heater in my APC. It also worked as a stove to heat up C-ratios. 50 years ago. We were all young and dumb.
If you were fighting in 74' you missed the whole world war by thirty or so years.
My dad was in Patton's 3rd as well; Africa, Italy, France, and Germany. POW last 90 days of the war.
3rd Army didn't serve or exist in Africa and Italy. Activated July 1944 in France.
While stationed at Ft Knox I went to an Armor conference. Patton's son, also a General officer, was the guest speaker. He mentioned that his father related to him that artillery won the war and provided an anecdote that a formation of 100 German tanks massed and attacked. After a US DIVARTY 3 FFE mission on the enemy, only two German tanks were operable. This is why artillery is called King of Battle.
Infantry is called the Queen of battle because the queen tells the King where to put his balls.
Roughly at minute 4:20, the description of the M4 tank reminded me of the movie, "Kelly's Hero's" and the character Oddball strategizing on how to take on the Tiger Tank.
Oddball The Greatest 👍
Awesome movie. And that character is so funny!
@@josemonge4604 WOOF WOOF!
'To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.' Gotta love that movie! If you can't find it? Make a deal ! A deal deal!
Reading one of the comments, the "grizzled veterans" of the Fifth Panzer Army were the remnants of the 11th and 21st Panzer Divisions. The "inexperienced" troops were the newly constituted panzer brigades which had no business fighting the veteran Third Army. Had von Mantueffel, the 5th Panzer Army commander, had his way he would have dissolved the panzer brigades and distributed the troops amongst the veteran but depleted panzer divisions.
"No business fighting the veteran Third Army." Stupid comment: you field the army you have not the imaginary one you wish you had. Should Hasso have retreated and refused to fight? He did his best with what he had.
@lee wood you are right but the "stupid one" was Adolf Hitler since he was the "stupid one" who created the independent panzer brigades instead of funneling the men and equipment into the panzer divisions. Hasso von Manteuffel used the brigades but the Americans chewed them up and wiped out a lot of tanks the Germans could have used better. From the historical perspective, we are lucky Hitler wasted those resources since they helped hasten the German defeat in the West.
@@leewood331 Not a stupid comment at all. What Manteuffel feared came to pass and those Panthers were wasted. It was Manteuffel who later broke through in the Battle of the Bulge whereas the better equipped but more poorly trained SS formations largely failed.
Agreed. The Title is click bait. Pattons formations did not defeat ''Hitlers best Panzers at Arracourt'' , rather the shattered and reformed remnants of previous fighting.
@andrew woodhead i thank you sir!
Very good history video! Well covered in detailed!
Agreed. But, I would have liked some graphics to illustrate exactly what the tactics were. It was hard to tell in the fog.
6 tank kills from a Piper Cub, outstanding!
Airpower definitely proved to be superior. Look at the Bismarck, stopped by an outdated Fairy Swordfish bi plane
I'm calling Bulshit on that! There is no way an airplane with a shaped-charge firing infantry weapon was more successful in one mission than were most actual purpose-built Allied CAS planes with the same kind of weapons. If you said he scared the Panzer 5's into retreating after seeing a forward observation aircraft light up a fuel truck then maybe but this??? Nah.
@@KCJAM1 top armor is thin. that is why modern anti-tank weapons go over the armor and blast down.
@@groofromtheup5719 Okay. Here we go. Firstly, thank you for the information on top armor. I am well-versed in the armor makeup for tanks from their first appearance on the battlefield to today and I was hoping the "shaped-charged" component of the bazooka round would be enough to explain my skepticism regarding this claim. Yes modern, laser-guided or wire-guided projectiles can be programmed to attack up and then straight down on the thinner, flatter top armor but since a shaped charge infantry weapon fired by an airplane, jerry-rigged to use these inaccurate weapons has a snowballs chance in hades to hit the target AND land flat enough for the shape-charge to effectively deploy (due to distance, angle of attack, lack of a target reticle, etc.) I doubt this plane outperformed Typhoons, P47's and really any other CAS purpose-built aircraft on a single mission like this. In fact, when the militaries went to confirm actual CAS kill claims against tanks the numbers were far less impressive than reported. Believe what you want but the facts belie the claims. That said, this guy had balls the size of the planet Mercury even trying this crap in a sloooooow, unarmored, observation aircraft
Tank ace?
Excellent work here. A fascinating look at a battle I was previously unaware of. Thanks.
Many thanks!
A Panzer is only as good as it's crew. Battles are not fought from tank spec sheets.
Exactly
Damn skippy. "Hunting tanks is fun and easy." Sgt. Murphy.
Told by two non combatants with a copy of W.O.T
Precisely
Panthers were also just inferior tanks, but your right about the biggest factor being crew training
Great vid...the guy in the Piper Cub launching rockets was new to me.
wow,, my dad a Master SGT. 4th Armored Division,, bronze star,nearly froze to death at Bastogne. Thanks Pop
My grandfather was part of Patton's 3rd battalion!!! He went from the end of africa into italy and stayed till the end! He was definitely there! Thank you for posting this
If he was in Africa, he wasn't in the 3rd Army. 3rd Army was not activated until July 1944 and only fought in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, and Austria.
A battle where the American tank destroyers were used in the way they were intended doctrine.
One of the few chances for such doctrine to be used, as it was arguably poorly conceived in the first place. Only the combination of fog/German lack of recce resources and poorly trained German personnel allowed the 'high mobility/shoot-and-scoot' US Tank Destroyer tactics to really come into their own, and only then with disproportionately high losses.
Shoot and scoot wasn't really how they were intended to be used. The speed was important so they could rapidly secure important terrain while laying in ambush. Only the he'll cat had the acceleration needed to attempt shoot and scoot.
@@alfnoakes392
Amazing how everytime the subject is a German defeat guy's like you list a bunch of excuses, never mind the fact that everyone was fighting in the same exact conditions and that the Germans being on the defense had knowledge of the terrain and the lay of the land as opposed to the Allies who were in a land and it's terrain for the first time, it's always easier to defend an area you already occupy as opposed to advancing across it.
They just plain got their asses handed to them, no two ways about it.
Duke Craig,
Its still true that the panzer brigades at Arracourt were green, poorly trained and didn't even have any organic recon elements. Panzer Brigade 111 didn't even receive its Panthers to train on until the 5th to 7th September. What can you learn in just over a week? The panzer brigades were desperately flawed and hastily formed units in an attempt to get some armoured units to the front to plug the gaps while the panzer 'divisions' were being rebuilt after the losses of Normandy and Bagration.
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee the hellcats gun good depression also played a part
Saying the Panther could penetrate the Sherman's armor at 2000 meters is meaningless. While that meant something on the vast grasslands of the Russian steppes where kills could be made at great distances the terrain in the west was different and the average distance on the long side was 350 to 750 meters. For this reason tactics were much different, and great numbers of Allied tanks worked together at close range to take out the German heavies.
Not to mention the M4 was reliable and 87% of all the ammunition they consumed was of the HE variety. That HE round was excellent by the way, much more effective than the HE rounds of the high velocity guns, including our own 76mm.
Exactly.
The western allies still lost around 3 tanks for every 1 German tank lost in combat 1944/45. Around 50% of German armour losses were not to direct combat.
Mean combat range in Western Europe was 850 metres.
@@lyndoncmp5751
And how many Allied tanks weren't lost to direct combat?
Everyone always does that when plugging away for their favorite fanboyism, like all the guys who swear that the Germans made the best fighter's, they present the total number of 8th Air Force bombers lost and try to attribute them all to German fighter's, they never subtract the ⅓rd that were lost to accidents and then also subtract number shot down by flak, but when you bring up an honest number like the 56th Fighter Group shooting down German fighter's at a rate of 8 to 1 in their P47's they always try to come up with some nonsense excuses like the Germans not having any experienced pilots, yea, they didn't after mid 1944 because of the 56th Fighter Group having shot down all their experienced pilots by D-Day.
I spent Easter weekend of 1984 when I was stationed in Germany at the home of a German family that the father was a tanker in WW2, we were told never to bring up the war with the German people because it was considered bad manners but after finding out I was a crewman on an armored vehicle that guy was just tickled pink and was acting like we were fraternity brothers, the Schnapps flowed, I still have a hangover from that one, so I didn't think it'd be inappropriate to ask if what I'd heard growing up about the German tanks being so much better than ours was true, he literally balked at the suggestion, his very words were "I'll tell you what was superior, the number of Sherman's is what was superior!!! When there's only one or two of you and 10 to 15 Sherman's come rolling over the hill it was only going to end one way and we knew it!!!".
He said they spent most of their time running from the advancing Allies and when they got pushed back across the border into Germany him and his crew made an agreement, as soon as they ran out of fuel or ammo they'd abandon the thing and look for the first American unit to surrender to that they could find, and he attributed the fact that he was alive in 1984 to them having done just that, running from the advancing Allies then abandoning their tank and surrendering.
You hear the stories about Sherman crews having "Tigerphobia", well take it from someone who got it straight from the horses mouth the German tank crews had Shermanphobia just the same, and the one's that didn't died.
"Saying the X could penetrate the Xs armor at 2000 meters is meaningless."
Said no tanker ever. The excuses for the Sherman are reaching new heights.
Short ranges were common in the US sector of Normandy, which faced very few panzers until the later stages of the campaign anyway. The ranges were longer in the Commonwealth sector, which faced the vast majority of the panzers. Once the war moved into Germany, the landscape opened up and long range combat was very common.
My dad was radar technician in England during the war. He was a chief petty officer.
I grew up on a military base, did the ROTC thing, served in the Gulf War as a civilian safely behind the lines. I had a father and several uncles who served in WW2. Not all made it home. Those who did had unseen wounds for the rest of their lives in addition to some purple hearts
As an old man now, I'm only now capable of their hardships, sacrifice, and sometimes broken relationships and lives. They have all passed on. The least I can do now is stand for the anthem, respect our flag, and love the greatest country in human history ... and support the current warriors who risk everything to uphold the traditions of those that served before them, and their families, spouses, children, siblings and parents whom often waited word of their warriors, not knowing.
Great Presentation. Well worth the Learning & Watch. Thanks.
I've read 3rd Army history; Pattons biographies and 4th Armoured history. Patton was a genius. He let his senior officers have the freedom to make their own Tactical decisions on the fly. He was a believer in Mission Command. I also own Patton's Air Force book. His relationship with General Otto Weyland of 19th Tactical Air Force was legendary. The best use of combined armoured and air power of World War 2. His relationship with General John Wood commander of 4th Armoured is legendary. Wood was nicknamed "Tiger Jack" because when Patton and Wood argued. Wood would pace in front of George while they barked and roared at each other funny considering they were close friends. Patton and 3rd Army have a rich and colorful history. "A SOLDIERS LIFE" goes in depth into why 3rd Army was so effective. It's loss ratios showed its sophistication in battle planning to control casualties to a low standard. In fact as something little known it was a self sustaining enterprise with a General of finance.
read a more in depth regarding this battle, advantage American and French armored forces because they had reconnaissance, troops like M5 stuarts and M8 Greyhounds and PIPER cubs, air support consisting of P47 white the germans was fighting blind blubbering into ambushes from M18 hellcats and towed AT guns and 105mm Artillery. this is were the French captured gobs of Panthers.
The book is Patton vs Panzers Battle of Arracourt by Steven Zaloga
12:26 bazooka joes plane was found and restored. it was a flying club shared plane. when restored and rededicated the daughter of the pilot was there. its on display some where
I'm actually happy to hear that.
Thank you for the video, and a great explanation of this little known battle! I do a little bit of wargaming with Mike armor and I am usually the Germans. I have seen this battle in one of our books, but we have not got the play it because I don’t have enoughminiature painted yet. Now I’ll be looking forward to see if I can change history.
My Dad was 6th Armored. He was in the original cadre when the division was formed. He joined the army at 17 in 1939
Outstanding documentary. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
The M-4 Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank. The Sherman was not designed originally to fight other tanks That was the job of the M10 and M18 tank destroyers. Two my Uncles were infantry in the ETO. They both said the Sherman’s were great supporting them. Both my uncles were each decorated for taking out a German tank, (I heard this from their VFW buddies ) turns out in my one Uncles platoon a dozen men were decorated for taking German tanks using non traditional methods.
A 76 mm gun was quite able to knock out any tank. Even a tiger. It was a serious gun. Shermans were designed on the chassis of the Grant, because that chassis existed and there was no time to dev another, and this meant mass production would not be delayed. The chassis also way highly customizable for variants needed. They had to be able to fit on US trains, and transport easily packed together on ships. Also they had to have great gas mileage and speed, work in all weather, and be easily repairable in the field. All these things meant that a dependable tank with anti troop and anti tank ability was available in large quantity for deployment - where it as needed, when it was needed. In Normandy the US had by bad luck mostly Sherman's with 75mm guns, not 76, and the unexpected hedgerow country to move through. Basically in the case of the Sherman 76mm, whomever got the first shot off would be the likely winner of the encounter. Notably the reputation of the Sherman as a 'firetrap' is a myth. Any tank hit would burn. The high number of burned Shermans was due to the fact that the Germans would burn any knocked out tank, to ruin it and avoid it being repaired. Also US crews were supported by the fact that Shermans had dedicated spring loaded escape hatches for each crew member, which greatly increased ones chances of survival when needed. The American crews did much better surviving knocked out tanks than their contemporaries because of this.
Brave fellows
The Sherman was basically a Swiss Army knife. It was capable of doing a variety of jobs to support the war effort. Thats what made it a great tank.
bruh, that was a common myth, technically, if they were meant to be an infantry support tank, what the hell they do if the German tank firing at the infantry? run away and call the HQ to send the TDs? also remember that the M3 75mm on the M4 was basically the same caliber brought from the M3 GMC tank destroyer
@@trantuananh7541 Thank you, I'm really not sure where people get this idea that the Sherman was never meant to fight tanks. Why would we design a tank with a powerful gun and not have it fight other tanks. While it's true it was primarily used in the doctrine of supporting infantry it was still designed to take out enemy tanks when needed, most notably the Panzer IV which the 75mm/76mm were great at.
So the tank M1 Abrams was named after General Creighton Abrams. What an honor.🙂✌
Is your name Chitty-chitty? (Smile).
The Battle of Aauracourt never fails to impress me. I know the mobility of the Sherman was excellent for its time but with respect to the armor and and armament of the Sherman when compared to the German tanks it's like taking a knife to a gunfight. Patton and his subordinates did a hell of a job being seriously out gunned and outnumbered. Creighton Abrams was a hell of a tank Commander under Patton. Think it was maybe James Woods hard against the Germans there. Major props to third army.
Hardly. Sherman tanks had many soft advantages that doesn't show up on hard stats like a fast turret traversal, good crew ergonomics, fast target acquisition due to stabilizer and gunner wide FoV sight, etc.
In reality Sherman tanks traded against Panthers at a 1:1.1 ratio, which is very impressive when you consider panther is a much heavier and more expensive tank and Germany was mostly on the defensive.
Also most German tanks at the time were panzer IVs and various assault guns which were strictly worse than the Sherman tanks.
They also had a lot of tank destroyers .
Sherman’s could fire while moving, Germans had to stop and fire. The US tank ammo was also better. Many German tank ammo were dudes or were even dangerous to fire.
@@gamesguy Check the stats, almost half tehGerman armored losses were caused by P-47's. I think the US was very glad to have preety much uncontested air superiority at the time.
@@milsimgamer this is complete nonsense. You made it up. Actual data shows less than 3% of tank losses were to aircraft.
Late 1991, near an Air Force base in the US: A group of A-10 pilots are telling each other stories of destroying tanks in Iraq. Nearby, an aged grey-haired man in a well-worn leather jacket smiles into his scotch.
did the scotch taste good
Knowing they had shot British Challenger 1s?
Why were they bragging over a turkey shoot ? That's why the old man was laughing.
The old man was reminded of his time in his P47
@@g8ymw And never penetrated
Reading these stories of Patton make me smile. That man was made for this war, and was the key force behind American tank doctrine.
Such a shame he lost his cool a few times.
Had a next door neighbor who died last year at age 106. He served in Patton s 3rd armyin Ww2. When I asked him about. Patton once, he said. Patton was an aho,but a pm so a genius. He said no other general could've pulled off what Patton did during the battle of the bulge
Years ago I got to talk briefly with a 3rd army veteran, a customer at the store I was working at. I asked him his opinion of Patton, and he said, trying to quote from memory, "Patton ran us hard, but with Patton we got shit done," his face beamed with pride as he said it. I could tell from how he said it he probably resented how hard he pushed them at the time, but as the results of their hard work became apparent with so many victories, he came to really respect and appreciate the method to Patton's madness. He was one of a kind.
"Lost his cool" is part of the whole package to get things done.
Patton was a sumari like warrior and had little respect for people he viewed as cowards. He didn't ask his troops to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. When serving with General Pershing in Mexico he had a gunfight with Mexican bandits in a coral.
Actually he had very little to do with the development of American armor doctrine. Adna Chaffee was far more influential than Patton in the development of American armor doctrine. Patton got famous primarily because he swore a lot in front of reporters and he was in the right place at the right time more often than not. He also had a good eye for talent when it came to his staff officers.
Patton was an average US general, like Simpson, Patch, Hodges, etc. No more. "The Allied armies closing the pocket now needed to liaise, those held back giving way to any Allied force that could get ahead, regardless of boundaries - provided the situation was clear. On August 16, realising that his forces were not able to get forward quickly, General Crerar attempted to do this, writing a personal letter to Patton in an attempt to establish some effective contact between their two headquarters and sort out the question of Army boundaries, only to get a very dusty and unhelpful answer. Crerar sent an officer, Major A. M. Irving, and some signal equipment to Patton’s HQ, asking for details of Patton’s intentions intentions and inviting Patton to send an American liaison officer to the Canadian First Army HQ for the same purpose.
Irving located but could not find Patton; he did, however, reach the First Army HQ and delivered Crerar’s letter which was duly relayed to Third Army HQ. Patton’s response is encapsulated in the message sent back by Irving to Canadian First Army; ‘Direct liaison not permitted. Liaison on Army Group level only except corps artillery. Awaiting arrival signal equipment before returning.’ Irving returned to Crerar’s HQ on August 20, with nothing achieved and while such uncooperative attitudes prevailed at the front line, it is hardly surprising that the moves of the Allied armies on Trun and Chambois remained hesitant." - Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944
Patton refused to liaise with other allied armies, exasperating a critical situation. "This advance duly began at 0630hrs on August 18 which, as the Canadian Official History remarks,16 ‘was a day and a half after Montgomery had issued the order for the Canadians to close the gap at Trun, and four and a half days after Patton had been stopped at the Third Army boundary’. During that time, says the Canadian History, the Canadians had been ‘fighting down from the north with painful slowness’ and the Germans had been making their way east through the Falaise gap. They were not, however, unimpeded; the tactical air forces and Allied artillery were already taking a fearful toll of the German columns on the roads heading east past Falaise. Patton’s corps duly surged away to the east, heading for Dreux, Chartres and Orléans respectively. None of these places lay in the path of the German retreat from Normandy: only Dreux is close to the Seine, Chartres is on the Beauce plain, south-east of Paris, and Orléans is on the river Loire. It appears that Patton had given up any attempt to head off the German retreat to the Seine and gone off across territory empty of enemy, gaining ground rapidly and capturing a quantity of newspaper headlines. This would be another whirlwind Patton advance - against negligible opposition - but while Patton disappeared towards the east the Canadians were still heavily engaged in the new battle for Falaise - Operation Tractable - which had begun on August 14 and was making good progress." - Neillands, Robin. The Battle of Normandy 1944
Instead of moving east to cut retreating Germans at the Seine, Patton ran off to Paris. John Ellis in Brute Force described Patton's dash across northern France as well as his earlier “much overrated” pursuit through Sicily as more of “a triumphal procession than an actual military offensive.” Patton at Metz advanced 10 miles in three months. The poorly devised Panzer Brigade concept was deployed there with green German troops. The Panzer Brigades were a rushed concept attempting to plug the gaps while the proper panzer divisions were re-fitting and rebuilt after the summer 1944 battles. The Panzer Brigades had green crews with little time to train, did not know their tanks properly, had no recon elements and didn't even meet their unit commander until his arrival at the front. These were not elite forces. 17th SS were not amongst the premier Waffen SS panzer divisions. It was not even a panzer division but a panzer grenadier division, equipped only with assault guns not tanks, with only a quarter of the number of AFVs as a panzer division. The 17th SS was badly mauled in Normandy and not up to strength at Arracourt in The Lorraine.
Patton's Third Army was almost always where the best German divisions in the west were NOT. ♦
Who did the 3rd Army engage? ♦
Who did the 3rd Army defeat? ♦
Patton never once faced a full strength Waffen SS panzer division nor a Tiger battalion.
In The Lorraine, the 3rd Army faced a rabble.
Even the German commander of Army Group G in The Lorraine, Hermann Balck, who took command in September 1944 said: "I have never been in command of such irregularly assembled and ill-equipped troops. The fact that we have been able to straighten out the situation again…can only be attributed to the bad and hesitating command of the Americans." Patton was mostly facing a second rate rabble in The Lorraine. Patton was neither on the advance nor being heavily engaged at the time he turned north to Bastogne when the Germans pounded through US lines in the Ardennes. The road from Luxembourg to Bastogne saw few German forces, with Bastogne being on the very southern German flank, their focus was west. Only when Patton neared Bastogne did he engage some German armour but not a great deal at all. Patton's ride to Bastogne was mainly through US held territory.
The Fuhrer Grenadier Brigade was not one of the best German armoured units with about 80 tanks, while 26th Volks-Grenadier only had about 12 Hetzers, and the small element of Panzer Lehr (Kampfgruppe 901) left behind only had a small number of tanks operational. Patton did not have to smash through full panzer divisions or Tiger battalions on his way to Bastogne. Patton's armoured forces outnumbered the Germans by at least 6 to 1. Patton faced very little German armour when he broke through to Bastogne because the vast majority of the German 5th Panzer Army had already left Bastogne in their rear moving westwards to the River Meuse. They were engaging forces under Montgomery's 21st Army Group. Leading elements were engaging the Americans and British under Montgomery's command near Dinant by the Meuse. Monty's armies halted the German advance and pushed them back. On the night of the 22 December 1944, Patton ordered Combat Command B of 4th Armored Division to advance through the village of Chaumont in the night. A small number of German troops with anti tank weapons opened up with the American attack stopping and pulling back. The next day fighter bombers strafed the village of Chaumont weakening the defenders enabling the attack to resume the next afternoon. However, a German counter attack north of Chaumont knocked out 12 Shermans with Combat Command B retreating once again.
It took Patton almost THREE DAYS just to get through the village of Chaumont. Patton's forces arrived at Chaumont late on the 22nd December. They didn't get through Chaumont village until Christmas Day, the 25th! Hardly racing at breakneck speed. Patton had less than 20 km of German held ground to cover during his actual 'attack' towards Bastogne, with the vast majority of his move towards Bastogne through American held lines devoid of the enemy. His start line for the attack was at Vaux-les-Rosieres, just 15km southwest of Bastogne and yet he still took him five days to get through to Bastogne. In Normandy in 1944, the panzer divisions had been largely worn down, primarily by the British and Canadians around Caen. The First US Army around St Lo then Mortain helped a little.
Over 90% of German armour was destroyed by the British. Once again, Patton faced very little opposition in his break out in Operation Cobra performing mainly an infantry role. Nor did Patton advance any quicker across eastern France mainly devoid of German troops, than the British and Canadians did, who were in Brussels by early September seizing the vital port of Antwerp intact. This eastern dash devoid of German forces was the ride the US media claimed Patton was some sort master of fast moving armour.
Patton repeatedly denigrated his subordinates. ♦
In Sicily he castigated Omar Bradley for the tactics Bradley's II Corps were employing ♦
He accused the commander of 3rd Infantry Division, Truscott of being "afraid to fight". ♦ I
n the Ardennes he castigated Middleton of the US VIII Corps and Millikin of the US III Corps. ♦
When his advance from Bastogne to Houffalize stalled he criticised the 11th Armoured Division for being "very green and taking unnecessary casualties to no effect". ♦
He called the 17th Airborne Division "hysterical" in reporting their losses. After the German attack in the Ardennes, US air force units were put under Coningham of the RAF. Coningham, gave Patton massive ground attack plane support and he still stalled. Patton's failure to concentrate his forces on a narrow front and his decision to commit two green divisions to battle without adequate reconnaissance resulted in his stall. Patton rarely took any responsibility for his own failures. It was always somebody else at fault, including his subordinates. A poor general who thought he was reincarnated. Oh, and wore cowboy guns. Patton detested Hodges, did not like Bradley disobeying his orders, and Eisenhowers orders. He also hated Montgomery. About the only person he ever liked was himself.
Read: Monty and Patton: Two Paths to Victory by Michael Reynolds and Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies by Harry Yeide
slow clap. very, very, slow
@@quovadis5036 ???
My father, Captain Arthur C Anderson, was in the 37 Armor Regiment under the direct command of Creighton Abrams.
37th Tank Battalion not Regiment. Only the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions had Armored Regiments during the war as they were still configured as "Heavy" Divisions under the original TO &E. All other U.S. Armored Divisions were reorganized in 1943 and had 3 Tank Battalions instead of 2 Armored Regiments.
I'm a tank buff love is my army tanks and the video really enlightening me on a lot of things that I just presumed to be and maybe not but I thank you for the video I enjoyed it thank you so much
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
I think we can all agree Bazooka Charlie was a bad ass.
OMG, and he's flying in a scout plane that's basically a kite with a propeller in front! The man had incredible courage and desire to strike at the enemy.
Very good facts about Patton, American general. " I don't care what color you are just kill those SOB s , " said Patton... He was born in southern California of French heritage. Good details on this battle and of the war ! 🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
Patton was a Southern man from a famous Southern family. Virginia was his real home.
@@thomaswaynewardPatton's family in Southern California was fabulously wealthy which made George independently wealthy. He became frustrated with obtaining replacement parts for his trucks when training troops so ordered them over the telephone from a Sears catalog then had them shipped by priority mail by train to get them a day or two later.
An amazing fight, and yes, needs more attention than it gets.
Despite mythology, the 75mm armed M4 was a brilliant tank.
no, it sucked.
Yep, best tank of the entire war. Loved how they decimated the Nazis at Arracourt.
@@protonneutron9046 What a well thought out reasoned response
@@drewschumann1 yes, and backed up by US Army records.
@@protonneutron9046 Which records? The ones that showed that the M4 was the most survivable tank of WWII? Or maybe the records that showed the 75mm gun was the most effective against the most common threat to US tank? Or maybe the records that proved the M4 had a 1:1 exchange rate with Axis tanks? Or the records that proved the M4 was incredibly reliable, durable and capable of being deployed to all theaters of the war?
A very good presentation of this battle.
Not generally remembered today, the US 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions were "elite". The US Armored Divs mastered the combined arms concepts very quickly and had Commanders who were adaptable, flexible, agile, and aggressive. These commanders and their men skillfully used their tanks, TDs, arty, and infantry to defeat larger, better equipped, and more experienced German units.
Also, the Armored Infantry Battalions of the ADs don't get enough love or acknowledgement from historians who focus on the tanks, missing the fact that most of the tanks destroyed were knocked out by the AIBs and TD detachments.
The British versions of those would be the 11th armoured Division and Guards Armoured Division.
Excellent!
Thank you.
To FactBytes. This is wrong on so many counts. You must not spread false information. For the battle, German units assembled 262 tanks and assault guns. The German force initially comprised two panzer corps headquarters, the 11th Panzer Division and the 111th and 113th Panzer Brigades. The experienced 11th Panzer Division was short of tanks, having lost most of its complement in earlier fighting. Although the two panzer brigades had new Panther tanks, they were manned by fresh crews who had only received two weeks of training and could not read maps appropriately. The need to quickly respond to the sudden advance of the 4th Armored Division and a fuel shortage left the crews with little time for training and little proficiency in tactical maneuvering in large, combined arms operations.
Combat Command A (CCA) under Colonel Bruce C. Clarke of the U.S. 4th Armored Division in XII Corps consisted of the 37th Tank Battalion, the 53rd Armored Infantry Battalion, the 66th and 94th Armored Field Artillery Battalions and the 191st Field Artillery Battalion. Also present were elements of the 35th Tank Battalion, the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion, the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, the 25th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, the 24th Armored Engineer Battalion, and the 166th Engineer Combat Battalion.
The 5th Panzer Army outnumbered CCA in tanks and was equipped with Panther tanks, superior to American M4 Sherman tanks in frontal armour protection and main gun range, countered by the U.S. tanks' faster turret traverse and stabilized guns. In close air support, U.S. forces enjoyed an overwhelming advantage. Earlier sorties by U.S. fighter bombers caused some German panzer units to fail to arrive in time for the battle, as they were damaged or destroyed in separate encounters with other Allied forces. Regarding the battle itself, everything can be read on Wikipedia for those who are interested in the truth. Shame on you Factbytes.
Wikipedia is easy to access for info, but I would never use it as a source.
When you think about it, tactics really saved the day. We went against the germans with equipment that was a step below their tank specs. We had the speed advantage but sherman armor and guns weren't quite matching up to those Panzers. BUT our boys got it done.
What’s the difference?…by this time Pattons army was a well groomed , victorious well oiled war machine led by a decisive general…..by this time the German army was a shadow of its victorious 1941 version…..also allied air superiority was total.
Quite right. By 1944 Germany was also getting severe shortages in trained troops while fuel stocks were barely enough to reach the divisions much less be enough for sustained offensives. The vast Eastern Front ate up most of Germany's supply chain and manpower. Speaking of the Eastern Front, following far higher than expected casualties for the *Germans* in the winter of 1941 the German high command was forced to graduate a whole batch of officer one year in advance. The batch of officers which would otherwise have been the graduating class of 1943 became a not-fully-trained-and-educated class of 1942. Needless to say with 50,000 to 60,000 KIA every *month* in the second half of 1943 it's no wonder the nazis began re-classifying former part-Jews (just one Jewish great-grandparent was enough to be considered non-German) as Germans and the SS even granting all kinds of people "aryan status" - heck, including a Bosnian Muslim SS division (Handschar). When you're desperate to fill your ranks even nazis will be flexible with their former so rigid "racial laws".
Here's also something which some people don't consider. In June 1940 there were 142 German divisions in France. In June of 1944 there were 66 German divisions in France. That's less than half their numbers 4 years before. At the same time there were 192 German divisions on the Eastern-Front stretching from Finland to Romania in June 1944. This is taken from AxisHistory and official German war records.
As for Patton. He was vicious but old Blood'n Guts also sacrificed a lot of American lives for his victories. But the way he argued there was "way more where that came from". Manpower shortages wasn't something the US Army would be facing anytime soon... He'd be remembered as another Douglas Haig had the Germans been of the same quality and quantity in 1944 as they had been in 1940-1941.
General Patton should have a tank model named in his honor!
Last General that wanted to win a war.
I did not know of any of this history. American ingenuity combined with battle hardened troops "Fire and Maneuver" techniques won the week-long battle. Well done US Army soldiers !
"a disjointed series of intermittent thrusts" sounds like my last date. heyooooo
Sounds like you needed a pre-dawn vertical insertion.
Being an armchair warrior 70+ years later, here's my 2 cents. Eisenhower prolonged the war buy giving the gas and supplies to Monty. Market Garden failed and the Germans were able to horde equipment for Watch on the Rhine.
I don't think anyone nowadays doesn't realize that Market Garden wasn't a good idea.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 depends on if you happen to live on an island.
At the time of operation market garden the Siegfried line was largely a hollow shell. It had been stripped of most of its troops and much of its artillery to go to the Eastern front. By the time they gave the fuel back to the third Army the Germans had reinforced and re-equipped the Siegfried line to a high degree. Had that same force of paratroopers, fuel and ammunition been given to third Army we would have been in Germany largely out of those and possibly ended the war. There's a memoir I can't remember the name of the book itself but the writer is a German general Von Mellethin. That book will tell you exactly what was facing the third Army at the time.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographerI think operation market garden was so poorly planed because of the resistance they took in France past Normandy which was nothing I the allies thought Germany was done and were ignorant to the fact Germany had been preparing to hold where they were for a while.
@@ilikeships9333 market garden was like designing a traffic jam. Look at how many troops were going to advance essentially down to two lane road. I believe they had a corps involved in the advance down the two lane road. That's about 20,000 men, add to that over a thousand vehicles in tanks. Not to mention people are shooting at them from either side of that road. The ground to either side of that road was not suitable for armor it was too waterlogged. I feel Montgomery and Browning failed to account for the intelligence that was indicating there was more strength there than they thought or assumed. And then when they were right at the cusp of taking the the last Bridge they stopped. Granted their infantry was still fighting behind them while the armor was waiting for them, but why not advance with a new infantry unit?
Superb ! Thanks a lot.
Thank you!
A perfect example of technology being rendered useless by bad tactics and inadequate training.
The Germans were getting increasingly short on trained men at this stage of the war so they cut down training to the basics, employed kids and had little to no time to prepare them for real battle. The nazis had the idea that sheer will and German spirit would overcome any deficiency. More level-headed German commanders knew this spelled doomed for Germany and millions of killed and wounded Germans.
German logistics were also lacking throughout the war (this weakness was never really remedied following the early years of the war when victories were took mere weeks and didn't reveal this) but by the final year of the war it got from worse to disastrous.
During the Battle of the Bulge many Tiger II and Panther tanks simply ran out of fuel and never had any fuel trucks (or fuel depots conquered) assist them. A tank might be the most amazing tank designed ever but without fuel it's going nowhere and is nothing more than a glorified pillbox.
The later Shermans had many improvements especially the 76.2 mm hv gun models. Patten ordered welded additional armor, and prohibited sand bags.
My Dad's Uncle Walter served under Patton.
Was present at a 1987 brief to Armor Advanced Course students -- read captains -- by Arracourt veterans on a terrain model led by Jimmie Leach, a company commander in CCA Kind of unbelievable today.
Let's be honest here. Germany had little air support and the Allies had massive air power
and?
Germans had much more better tanks which was a huge advantage so??
@@SheffieldBankManagement for every German tank there were several allied tanks. So, they could hit the German armor from all directions, but yes they were superior in firepower and protection. They were just outnumbered.
Let’s be honest here, Germany shouldn’t have started a war they couldn’t afford.
Let's be clear Germany got there butt kicked.
Great history lesson. Where there many m10 wolverines present as well?
Creighton Abrams is who the M1 tank is named for. Patton himself said Abrams was the best tanker he'd ever seen
and Abrams did not get himself killed
@@wisconsinfarmer4742 He lead his tank forces in an up-armored Jumbo Sherman tank that could even absorb some of the dreaded 88 AT rounds frontally. The US should have made more Jumbos than they did.
not really much harder and heavier to transport in the holds of ships - over 3500 miles. And the shermans were quicker,dependable and parts interchangeable
@@goldleader6074jumbos were too heavy, they were overloaded like late model panzer IVs and could hardly perform a cross country march or climb obstacles.
@goldleader6074 Nope, his personal tank was a standard M4A3E8 "Easy 8" with a 76mm gun. The Jumbos were assault tanks and there were never enough built. Slower and less maneuverable than standard Shermans and only equipped with the 75mm gun.
Thank you
For decades the Sherman got a bad rap due to a lot of wrong assumptions and misunderstandings about tank warfare in general during WW2. While the Russian T34 was defintely it's rival for the best tank of WW2, all things considered the Sherman was the all around best. Easy to manufacture, load and unload on and off ships, narrow enough to cross the narrow bridges of Europe, easy to maintain and repair, very reliable, highly manuverable once it got moving and a hell of a lot easier to gear shift, move around inside of and bail out of, than the T34. The fact is that the Panther's side armor was about the same thickness as a Sherman. Ambushes were typically set up to attack from the side or rear which meant that there wasn't any clear advantage of Panzer or Panther tanks over the Sherman in that regard; a Panther wouldn't protect you from a well placed shot to its side armor any better than a Sherman. Sometimes the Sherman's tall profile is brought up as weakness because it was easier to hit, but captured German tank crews said this gave Sherman crews an advantage in spotting them. Early detection of the enemy and the Sherman's speed and mobility many times meant the difference between life or death in those situations. At Arracourt, Sherman crews performed brilliantly by leveraging the Sherman's strengths such as maximizing the 75mm pea shooter to great effect at close range.
It was the “Swiss army knife” of tanks. Able to do a multitude of jobs.
@@brennanleadbetter9708Yep, it really was. There were a multitude of versions. Gotta love how the Brits crammed that 17 pounder into it. German tank crews feared the Firefly.
What's more, the Sherman's 75 had a high rate of fire, up to 25 rounds a minute (so I'm told.) You throw enough metal at a Tiger and something is bound to stick.
@@chrisschultz8598 This is a really good point. While the Sherman needed the entire continent of Europe to turn from a dead stop, with an even minimal amount of speed it could whip turns on a dime. It's turret rotation rate was faster than anything the Germans had as well. When you combine that with its high rate of fire, it's not surprising that U.S. tankers got better at killing Tigers and Panthers as the war ground on. So what it essentially came down to for the 75mm was having the right ordinance. While HE rounds were highly effective against troops or unarmored artillery pieces, they would bounce off of a Tiger even at closer ranges - except perhaps a perfectly placed shot in the rear of the tank at very close range. But at the right range and angle, an AP round fired from a 75mm could penetrate Tiger armor. Even if didn't penetrate all the way though it could at least be like a grenade going off inside the tank. That's because German steel was inferior to American steel. It was more brittle than U.S. steel so even if a round didn't penetrate all the way through, the impact could cause shards of steel to splinter off inside the tank and really screw up the day for the Tiger crew.
@@GTX1123 Thanks for the added information about the Sherman. I learn new stuff every day.
Your thumbnail is an M36 tank destroyer. "Armor vs Panthers: How Patton's Third Army Tanks, Tank Destroyers and Artillery Crushed Hitler's Best Panzers at Arracourt." FTFY
Sometimes 'grizzled veterans' can get a little too grizzled and suddenly you have a formation almost completely composed of replacements. CCA on the other hand were veterans too, and hadn't taken so many losses. Equipment matters, but less than the users.
And grizzled veterans can become so grizzled they become overly cautious.
My Dad was there in a M4. He was badly wounded, was decorated for heroism. 4th armored
No one does well with inexperienced tank crews (most of the Germans) fighting against highly experienced veterans (the USA units) who also have air superiority over the battlefield. In fact, it's pretty much hopeless in the long run (as was the whole German strategic situation by that point in the war). However, kudos to Patton's troops, who clearly handled the situation very effectively. A well conducted defense all around.
The Western Allies had Air Supremacy over the battlefields not superiority. (And George would have handled things even better had Ike not squandered resources on Monty's ego.)
lee wood
None of Patton's resources were squandered on Montys ego. Market Gardens resources came from British stocks, and Market Garden was still the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period.
Patton had already been failing against Metz for a week before Market Garden was even green lit.
Patton's Lorraine campaign was a miserable failure. 4 months to move barely 50 miles, with nearly 55,000 combat casualties? The Lorraine was the biggest allied failure of autumn 1944.
@@leewood331 Crap It was NOT Patton who Ike asked to straighten the Bulge but Montys 21st Army group and Hodges and Simpkins were assigned to Monty. Hodges did not like it Simpkins got on well with Monty.
I thought US doctrine emphasised the role of Tank Destroyers in Tank vs Tank battles. Would like greater clarity about their role
The M4 was not only not a bad tank, it was actually a pretty darn good tank. America built a lot of them, and got them, along with crews, parts, ammo, fuel, mechanics, to battlegrounds all over the world. Enough of them to help win the war.
It definitely gets a bad rap, it did it's job well given the circumstances. It was much more reliable than German and Soviet tanks, kept crews alive unlike Soviet tanks, and it was relatively easy to produce, transport, and supply across the oceans. Most of the issues were mitigated by upgrades as the war went on.
Parts were interchangeable between the M4 production runs. The front final drive housing would fit onto any M4 chassis. The turrets were drop in fits into any M4 chassis. The M36 turret was first used in M4'S that were repaired in France when labor problems prevented further production of the M10 chassis. The Army shipped over 29 M36 turrets after instructing Ford to set M36 turrets on their new M4'S coming off the production line then redo the ammo bins outside the plant.
Look at the success they had, and the fact that they stayed in use updated by Israel for the next 50 years, reliable and plentiful, two things the Germans couldn't say...
@@rayjon237 I think you are referring to the Centurion
I agree. I was in the tank corp in the 50's stationed at Ft. Knox Ky. At that time we had the M48 Patton. 90ml and a 50 cal. machine gun. Fortunately we were never called to Korea. The M48 was a good tank for its time. Had several upgrades from the M47. The tank and it’s crew was only as good as the tankers who were assigned to them.
The same with all the new high tech fighter planes. They are only as good as the pilots flying them.
They looked liked diff. Shermans,like Firefly,or Pershing?And Rosie The Rocketer,WOW never knew that.
Enjoyed it! Thank you for this. Btw, Arracourt is a French word and should be pronounced as "Arra-coo". Same with all the other names that end in 'court'.
i mean, the guy sounds like he's using text to speech so i dont know how he would hope to pronounce it right
Does anyone know the story behind the clip near the beginning which shows the American jeep on fire? I have been looking for that one for quite awhile.
that bazooka plane is in MA. American History Museum
Thoroughly enjoyed this one ..
Great subject matter, great video. What you narrated at the end ... "superior mobility ... provided a decisive edge to the defenders" ... pretty much sums up the competitive advantage of the US military in general: besides our always-superior technology, our mobility usually guarantee USA victories against any enemy. Unfortunately our enemies don't always grasp our many superiorities and get into wars with us anyway. Then they make many mistakes which guarantees their loss. China and Russia and North Korea take note: don't even try it.
You mean like Vietnam or Afghanistan? You had the advantage of superior tech, mobility and overwhelming firepower, but you still lost. Not on the field, but where it really matters, which is in the public sphere. The greatest weakness of the US military is the humble body bag. Too many of them returning on those overseas flights, will turn all but the most ardent warmonger against conflict. You can have all the tech in the world, but if your people don't want to fight, then the fact you are a 'democracy' will work against you. If the USA was a ruthless dictatorship, you wouldn't have to worry. But you aren't. I don't think any sovereign nation is stupid enough to directly attack you. So, if you engage an enemy, you're going to be the aggressor, and with the instantaneous spread of information now, something like the Iraq invasion will be seen for the lie it is. Hostile nations know the best way to hit you, is in your pockets. It'll be economic and cyber warfare that will be used against you, because the leadership of these nations aren't stupid.
@@georgelazenby3607 Good points George. As to ruthless dictatorship ask Pootin how well that's worked for him? As to cyber warfare we're fine. It's the pandemics from China I worry about. But take a look at how that did not really hurt us economically. hmmm, maybe we try regime changes in the hostile countries! yeah, that's the ticket
Sorry ruby your nationalistic bullshit seems to have run away with your logic. Listen to the narrator. It's not often you will find an American source who relays it as honestly as this one. The German forces technology was beyond US capabilities. He repeatedly tells us the German forces were scracth units full of rookies with a lack of logistics including fuel.
The US forces engaged performed magnificently - I doubt many will deny that. The question should be asked however how did the US army get itself into this position in the first place - to be so worried by an inferior force (no matter their tanks were technologically streets ahead of the US equivalent they were scratch understrength and would have been easy meat for the US forces had they been better deployed and not left themselves open to such attack - that is not good battlefiled management tactics - I'll leave you to call it what you will - I will merely say it was rash and once more underestimated the enemy. Nobody did scratch, cobbled together, hastily constructed attack or defence than the German Army - they were masters of it and the US leadership must have been aware of it having fought from N Africa, through Italy, then into Southern and Northern France yet they sill fell foul of it. Both here and at the Bulge. Patton was just not as good as his PR flunkies would wish him to have been. He outran his logistics and his abilities. Though his ego would never admit to such of course.
Eure immer (US?)" überlegene Technologie" im WW II ?? Ihr hattet ja noch nicht einmal ein richtigen Motor für eure Blechdose von Sherman. Mein Vater sagte damals, die US-Panzer konnte man mit einen Dosenöffner knacken. Ihr seid immer so Grosskotzig, und glaubt, das ihr das "Warme Wasser", oder den "tiefen Teller" erfunden hättet. In Wirklichkeit, habt ihr nur alles von den Deutschen "abgekupfert".
@@scaleyback217 During this exact time period (Sept 17th) Operation Market-Garden was going on up North in and around Holland and was being prioritized the Allies limited logistics due to inadequate port facilities on mainland Europe after the invasion a few months prior. I seem to remember that Market-Garden was planned and implemented in only 7 days, so perhaps 3rd Army was not given much notice that their logistics were to be diverted elsewhere and had to halt wherever they were until adequate logistics arrived in order to continue major advances.
Interesting documentary on a little known, but important tank battle.
I had a friend who commanded an antitank gun. He may have in or around this battle.He was in the 79th division.
My uncle was Patton's car driver and as the war was over he was released only to learn a new driver was involved in a car accident that eventually precipitated Patton's death.
When you say patton Sherman tanks verse panther tank, you left out one other vital ingredient the 19th tactical airforce group they protected patterns Flank and blasted everything in front of him, so you could say it was two against one
Shane Tharle, I was thinking the same. It's been interesting to hear about German tank losses from breakdowns, fuel shortages, etc. However, I wonder how many were due to allied aircraft attacks? Something that the allies themselves didn't really need to contend with from early to mid 1944 onwards.
BTW, one if my two uncles who fought in WWII flew Hurricanes and P47's during the war. Obviously in later times, he would have been involved mainly in ground attack. That's why your same comment came to mind.
@@MrT67 The Chieftain on YT has you covered on German tank losses to allied air: ruclips.net/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/видео.html
@@goldleader6074 Thanks Bud👍
Very clear explanation.
What helped out the US tankers during that battle were their tanks ability to be driven at top speed for long periods of time without breaking down. That allowed them to race ahead of advancing Panzers to take advantageous positions to shoot down at them from the tops of hills. Others raced behind their lines to surprise from from the rear where they shot up as many as possible before taking off to safety.
Allied tanks had no advantages in speed and where significantly less mobile off-road, in particular over soft ground and mud where tanks like the Sherman's narrow tracks and primitive suspension was a major tactical weakness.
Battlefield statistics show that Allied tanks were knocked-out at ranges that exceeded the effective range of more Allied tank guns.
The 75mm would frequently bounce off the panzers, as the panzers had thicker frontal armour. That is why the u.s would hit them in the track areas. When the m26 pershing came out with the long barrelled 90mm gun. They didnt really get a chance to use them. But they had a few that worked really well. When the north korean ( russian) tanks came up against some pershings. The pershings shot through both sides of the russian tanks.
I had a debate with a guy over why the Germans he believed were better army even though they lost in one of the reasons why he brought up was that they would counter-attack after their enemy was exhausted so they cannot dig in. This is an example of them doing just that but with the worst possible result.
A "Pyrrhic Defeat?" lol
German army doctrine was to be more adaptable and more flexible, with more initiative by NCOs and lower down etc.
Its staggering how they still managed to put up a tough fight against 3 world super powers all at the same time. No other army could have done this. The combined allies had 3 or 4 times as many troops, 4 or 5 times as many tanks etc. Then add in allied air support and more or less unlimited supplies in comparison.
Still, it's their own fault. Hitler and co shouldn't have bitten off more than he could chew.
Don’t dismiss the impact of crypto analysts. We knew the German plans.
German tactics were very good but didn't always work due egos and problems
@@waynehewett4017 the guy I was talking to that was his point was that the US adopted a lot of the German tactics as did a lot of armies
One of the biggest problems for historians with the battles fought in Lorraine of which Arracourt was one of several battles is that both sides exaggerated the number of kills made. So such so one of the Panzer brigades were declared destroyed twice and was still operational. Also with the coming of the fall rains things deteriorated on the battlefield as the medieval drainage systems had been choked off from earlier fighting. So it was easy for a tank to become hopelessly bogged. This affected the green crews of the Panzer brigades who became reluctant to leave the road ways. On a few engagements Panthers were caught broadsides and in this position even the standard short barrel 75mm of most Sherman tanks could easily penetrate the hull sides of the Panther at range. During this phase of the battle the light M5 Stuart tank came into its own getting a reputation of being mud runners. So much so the 4th Armoured division put the M5 to heavy use relying on this tanks mobility.
Patton’s fuel was diverted? Sounds like Monty again… LOL!
If Ike had given Patton a free hand, the war would’ve been shorter and saved lives on all sides!
Monty was winning battles vs. The Germans and rounding up Italians by the tens of thousands before Patton was even in the game. Patton also screwed up Sicily by being too proud to stick to his job of blocking German forces on Monty's left flank. Consequently, the majority of German forces escaped to Italy and made it a "self-sustaining prison camp" for the Allied Forces.
Monty also was the Commander on the ground at D-Day. Without Monty, it's doubtful Patton would have even made it onto the Continent.
Both commanders screwed up, both had successes. Any other analysis is just Nationalism disguised as history.
@@markrhodes1717 Montgomery was loathed by all his peers and funny you made no mention of his 'brilliance' at Falise Gap let alone ignoring intel prior to Market Garden let's not dig too deeply into his strategic plan swiftly seize Sicily.
Where is evidence of all this "loathing"? Again, at Normandy the British forces faced the best of Germany's SS and Wehrmacht divisions. Falaise Gap was an unqualified success, but mainly because of the superiority of Allied airpower. Sicily is a great example of how Patton's insubordination cost lives.
Montgomery was beloved by the British people. That was who he was leading, not his peers.
Again, he was defeating Germans and Italians before Americans even entered the War and while half of France still cowered behind the cover of Vichy as collaborators. For a full year the only opposition Hitler received was from the British Empire and her Commonwealth. The world owes those forces a debt of gratitude impossible to repay.
When Patton received the much lamented fuel he wanted, he butted his head up against the Siegfried Line in a bloody campaign whose objective, at least in part, was to save his own son-in-law who had been captured.
His boast to go through the Siegfried Line was exactly that, nothing more than a boast, and it took more patient and intelligent commanders to do it later in the War.
@@markrhodes1717
From reading the history in Italy, it seems Monty was too slow to exploit a gap in the Gustav line found by French North African troops and he did not let Freyberg act quickly or on his own initiative. Monty's well known extreme caution gave the Germans time to reinforce Italy's Gustav line and turn the battle into one of months and months of attrition.
Nice documentary. So THAT's who the the Abrams tank is named after, and what he did to earn such a distinction.
Robert Miller, my dad being German was one of those paratroopers and fought like hell at Monte Casino. Fighting for days he was shot twice and had shrapnel wounds. He made it out safely but was caught by the Americans weeks later along the Rhine river. He didn’t talk too much about his army days but it must have effected him later in life. He had a horrible temper and everyone got out of his way when he erupted. He loved smacking the crap out of my brothers, but especially me.
he was on the wrong side of history
He was born there.
Always had respect for paras no matter which side. Doubt I could jump flack,or no flack. My great uncle was at Cassino with the Desert Rats and always used to talk about Monty and Rommel when I was a kid.
It was a brutal fight at Monte Casino. My dads captain stepped on a land mine and blew both his legs off at the hip. My dad held him like a baby until he died a half hour later. He told my dad… if you ever make it out of here tell my wife and 2 children I love them.
40 years later my dad and mom looked up and found his captains wife. She was so thrilled about what he told her. She died shortly after. They had a huge story about it in the German news and papers.
It was a brutal fight at Monte Casino. My dads captain stepped on a land mine and blew both his legs off at the hip. My dad held him like a baby until he died a half hour later. He told my dad… if you ever make it out of here tell my wife and 2 children I love them.
40 years later my dad and mom looked up and found his captains wife. She was so thrilled about what he told her. She died shortly after. They had a huge story about it in the German news and papers.
How? By sheer numbers and overwhelming ordnance.
The objective was to win. Patton used the guns of battleships to stop the German tanks when he invaded Italy. And Patton had able tank commanders like Woods and Abrams.
Agreed! Also, Patton’s forces were well, motivated, battle hardened, and extensively trained!!
Gen.Patton didn't invade Italy. He *liberated* Italy.
And then after this battle Patton totally failed to advance across the Lorraine and get through the Siegfried Line to the Saar, even when he had a whopping 3:1 superiority in men and 8:1 superiority in tanks, plus overwhelming artillery and air support in early November. He still failed, and then blamed Bradley, Eisenhower and even Montgomery who was hundreds of km to the north.
Patton integrated air power better than most- Army Air Corps Gen. Tony Spatz was a close confidant
Hardly the first General to request naval assets to support or supplant his ground forces - nothing really noteworthy there Jon.