Currently my favorite WWII historian hands down. Always fascinating to listen to as well as read.

Just finished reading Normandy '44. Outstanding. I have a much better understanding of the Normandy Battles. A must read for anyone who is interested!

@docraineyiii8789

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for such a glowing review. Better hit the local library.

@dano5155

11 ай бұрын

And the maps, so great.

My Dad was a stretcher bearer in France , Dunkirk, North Africa , Salerno, Anzio, and the Gothic Line to Trieste. I slowly realised as I grew up , how lucky I was , and how lucky and smart my father was. Reading comics I never understood how D-Day and Normandy succeeded against the mighty German Army with their mighty Tigers etc…. James Holland cleverly omits mentioning Montgomery, to avoid the vitriol which still today colours most discourse about Normandy in particular. The throw away line by the character played by Ted Dansen in Saving Private Ryan….yes it’s St Patricks Day, and my Dad played football for Portrack Shamrocks ….denigrating Montgomery, is typical of the controversy. I recommend that anyone seriously interested in Normandy reads every book possible, appreciating that while early books often contain personal first hand accounts, the later books tend to present more objectivity, but not all !! And yes, I’ve been to Normandy….by motorbike 😊…and camped at Arromanches……. and stumbled upon Crépon where the only VC was awarded on 6th June…….. A visit to Normandie is a must.

Both of my late parents were in the British Army during WW2, my father serving abroad in tanks. I find James's books are absolutely superb with excellent detail, often from both viewpoints.

@sr7129

11 ай бұрын

What’d your mom do if you don’t mind my asking

@chriscarr9171

11 ай бұрын

@@sr7129 My mum served in the Royal Signals during ww2.

When a Sherman tank crew encountered a German Panther, it wasn’t one Sherman. Shermans came in groups of fives. The tank commander’s boss is on the radio. Calling in fighter-bombers and artillery onto the Germans.

@lyndoncmp5751

5 ай бұрын

Panthers usually operated in a troop of 5 as well. A Panther company had 3 troops, each with 5 Panthers.

@Idahoguy10157

5 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 … that is on an organization chart. But how many operational panthers were available? Likely less than five. Between lack of fuel, battle damage, needing parts and repairs. Plus combat losses.

Very interesting. And quite right. You do not mention, however, field artillery. A key element of the Normandy campaign (and right through to the Reich) was field gunnery. A decision was made well in advance of the landings that massive (and it was massive) support from field artillery would reduce losses significantly. From as early as 1941 the UK was scattered with regiments of Field Artillery (QF 25 Pdr) being held back and trained for the advent of the Second Front. The logistical requirements werw great, but the ability to push the foe back, effectively and from a distance, was exactly as foreseen. You are right to focus on infantry and tanks, but do not overlook the immense increase in artillery numbers (particularly field regiments).

James, I must say that you are a brilliant military historian. I have been reading books that you have written since I was 15. I must say that I am looking forward to reading more great books. Keep up the good work.

@docraineyiii8789

2 жыл бұрын

I admire the way you’ve complemented James here Mr. Honey. Each of your remarks hits it’s bullseye squarely. History, at it’s most fundamental, is storytelling, properly supported storytelling to be sure, but it is documented, accurate detail invoking the fullest array of human senses which best animate the past for our collective imagination. James unfailingly exercises his special knack for rich human detail bring the past into more expansive relief.

@AdamMann3D

2 жыл бұрын

He did Hunting Hitler, so I have 0 respect for him.

@docraineyiii8789

2 жыл бұрын

@@AdamMann3D Hi Mr. Mann, your response puzzles me. I haven’t read the book you site, but can think of a number of reasons for the title. Can you share with us what you find beyond the historical pale? I mean no disrespect. I’m a student. I’m here to learn.

@docraineyiii8789

2 жыл бұрын

@@AdamMann3D was Hunting Hitler fiction?

@jamestrussoni8808

2 жыл бұрын

@@docraineyiii8789 Hunting Hitler is an american tv show about tracing high ranking Nazi's that escaped to south America. It's hard to dispute a lot of their findings although it's mixed with a lot of conjecture. I enjoyed it

Whoo! A non-Canadian historian who didn't airbrush the Canadian Army out of WW2, Thanks James!

@kentishmale1969

2 жыл бұрын

Trouble is you live so close to the USA, who often seem to be under the impression that they won the war single handed - they were the only ones on D-Day completely forgetting the British we also had two beaches and the Canadians who had a beach. The Canadians punched well above their weight in both World Wars, along with the Aussies and Kiwis, making the Allied forces a fearsome fighting beast !!

@Bobblenob

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think he is confused with logistics and operations. Just calling the same thing different names, but I agree, I would have said logistics

I actually use to go fishing with a guy that was in the first wave of D-Day. He said he lost his friends that day. He really did not like talking about it. He was also in the battle of the bulge. Been dead for about 12 years now. Nice guy with a lot of bad memories.

This is an excellent analysis of a major issue in WWII and other history. I’ve spent years analyzing technology and learned about the rule of piece part counts. Everything in logistics scales combinatorially with parts count. E.g. waiting time for the key part you can’t get. In database this is called, “the parts explosion”. German armies WWII especially, were afflicted with parts count problems, including the number of types of trucks, but extending down into the build of tanks and guns. They optimized performance at a unit level to narrowly-defined criteria. I’m glad they did.

I purchased this book during the last lockdown . I was interested to see how James Holland approached the Normandie campaign and compare with other books written by other historians and veterans etc. . I did enjoy this book and James Holland has gone to great effort to research this important part of the European theatre of WWII . I did however feel that his attitude towards the German role was dismissive and showed more biaised opinion . I had the pleasure of meeting a number of veterans of both UK/Canadian and German tank/Panzer crews and one thing that stood out was that the Germans had a lot more confidence in their equipment as opposed to the UK/Can. had in theirs. Though the German vets' complained about the non existence of the Luftwaffe and of strained necks of constantly sky watching for the dreaded Jabos. As a former member of the British Army (Household Division) I have to admire the fighting ability of certain elements of the German Army in particular their ability to defend and reorganise under extreme pressure from the Allies. And to show balance I admire how the British in particular were able to deploy the intelligence and counter intelligence which ultimately gave the Allies the upper hand in eventual victory.

Hi James. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the reading pleasure you have provided. Your writing style is fantastic and keeps the reader wanting more. Keep up the great work! Looking forward to reading more of your work.

The way you explain things is EXCELLENT thanks you for hours of EXCELLENT documentarys, ❤❤😮😮😮I'm 52 and still learning thanks, PAUL GREETINGS FROM THE ISLE OF MAN 😊😊.

I've watched several of your videos, but I am going to have to read your books. You're my favorite WWII historian. You talk about talk about support services. I think that anyone interested in WWII history knows about the Red Ball Express humping fuel and supplies nonstop. One example of noncombatant support. 😊 My father joined the US Army in 1942. He'd been in an exempt job with an aircraft manufacturer, but he is as a hot head and wanted in on the action. He went through OCS at age 28 and earned his commission, then went to Fort Knox, Kentucky, to train as a tank commander. Afterwards he was sent to Yuma, Arizona, to help Patton train his tank troops. He's gone from us now and I can't ask him. I don't know what he did in tye army after that, but got out after the war only to join the USAAF in 1946 or 1947 where he served until 1962 when he retired. He'd served 3 years in the Navy, X years in the Army and X more years in the Air Force totalling 23 years in total.

This just came up in my recommendations. My father was always proud of his war service and D day was something that he always reminded us about, but it was always big picture, never his own personal experience. It was only at his funeral when we learned a bit more. Must read this book thank you.

Beautifully put Sir.

Great presentation James spot on I live in New Zealand and have read all your books they were always a superb read thank you very much.

Thank you so much for understanding what seemingly so few military commanders grasped, my best soldier with his empty rifle will fall to the weakest enemy with his full slingshot. It is my estimation that had the French and British realized that as Germany dashed across Belgium, there objective should have been to avoid the head on clash, for which they were surely inferior, but make it to their rear and cut off their operational ability to "reload" - destroy the supply lines. Kudos to your post. Excellent job. May our hearts, minds and memories forever be with those that saved freedom - then and now.

Love him. Reading this right now as I prep for going to Normandy later this summer. It's a wonderful read.

Thanks for Uploading.

Absolutely BRILLIANT.

James writes in a clear and accessible style. I think he's done a great job of bringing WWII history to the general public.

Great talk on your book in Guildford and thanks for signing my copy.

"Soldiers got enough cups of tea." He's British alright.

The vehicles that won the war were the deuce and a half, jeep, Higgins boat,C47,and liberty ship. Logistics dull, underrated and the thing that wins wars!

@aaronseet2738

2 жыл бұрын

The British will be quick to point out, "And the Rolls Royce Merlin engine."

Your books are great James. I am steadily working my way through them :-)

Supply issues always in films and history....Mulberry harbours, Red Ball Express, Arnhem, Battle of the Bulge and the need for bridging in Kelly's Heros....the shipping convoys and U-Boats...all about supplies.....REMF are vital....as recognised in Blackhawk Down....'Can you type?'

Couldn't agree more so far, the majority who supported the front line troops deserve much more recognition.

LOVING the book, James.

Great book, quickly becoming a big JH fan.

So glad someone finally explains this..

We owe so much to these blokes

I read this book. It was great, informational with a compelling narrative told seamlessly through intimate stories. Recommended.

Great video and educated comments. Would really be interesting to have James cover for example Operation Market Garden or the Battle of Caen

@hughbo52

2 жыл бұрын

"Monte's" finer moments???

reading his book, good read

Good video, with some good info but I think James is confusing the Operational level and Logistics - both are very important though.

Great channel- from the US.

I just bought Sicily 43' yesterday. It will be my first James Holland read. Give me a couple of years!😕

Read the book. Well researched and written. Buy it

Very interesting alternative perspective of this campaign. We all get wrapped up in the excitement of Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan. Keep them coming!

Nice overview

Damn fine explanation.

Watched this and his other one on the same campaign. Explained fully the allied steamroller tactics: advance to contact, plot enemy positions, withdraw, pound with artillery and air strikes, roll on over the results. Worked every time against the Nazis, because they lacked the logistics to answer it. Of course the one thing James did gloss over was the critical importance of Ultra. Because of this, the Allies were always one step ahead; they knew who and what they were facing. The two times they ignored Ultra, they suffered losses: Market Garden and the Bulge.

Thanks James things I never new 👏👏👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

I read his book Normandy '44 and, truth be told, it was crap. As i feared, it panned out as follows: first third, lead up to the invasion. Second third: the first day. Final third: the entire remaining three months of the battle crammed into 100 pages. I was raging. Give me a whole book about the battle in the hedgerows.

Well said sir!

I greatly appreciate James Holland’s examination of the Battle for Normandy from a supply point-of-view, an angle that has hitherto been denied the attention it deserves. If the landings are successful, the outcome of a “beach-head battle” largely depends on supply. In June 1944 equipment decisions impacted something as basic as the ability of an infantryman to wade through the sea and cross a beach, and as complex as the nature of the Battle for Normandy. Consider the gliders that landed the night before D-day and on ensuing days. How were their payloads to be split between troops, grenades, mortars, machine guns, bazookas/PIATs, cannons, 57mm guns, ammunition, bicycles, motorcycles, jeeps, fuel, food, medical equipment, radio sets, and ancillary items? Who and what should be packed in individual gliders, assuming some would be lost? Similar questions arose with regard to infantry platoons. How many rifles, submachine guns, and light machine guns should be carried by each platoon? Mortars? PIATs/bazookas? Ration packs? Medical aid? Such decisions determined the mobility, endurance, and ability of soldiers to engage various enemy units in different environments and varying circumstances. But what does Mr. Holland mean by “small war” and “big war”? Given the context, does he mean the Allies included supplies and transport as integral parts of planning, whereas the Germans fought the Battle for Normandy without having considered the materiel and logistical demands of such a battle? A defending force on the back foot tends to plan reactive operations of a tactical nature, (although there are many examples of strategic defensive operations). It is difficult to have the right units and equipment in the right place at the right time to stop a hostile operation. The German High Command had debated an extremely strong coastal defence that would grant time for major reinforcements to travel long distances, versus a weaker coastal defence with big armoured and other units held in reserve some distance inland, so they could quickly reach coastal hotspots after hostile landings. (Rommel implemented the latter solution, but [1] Allied aircraft attacked all trucks and trains travelling towards and inside Normandy, [2] the Allied airborne divisions captured key bridges and embroiled inland German units in numerous firefights, [3] the unwillingness of a batman to wake Hitler critically delayed use of the German armoured units, and [4] the French Resistance cut telephone and telegraph lines, sabotaged railways, and blocked roads.) Before Overlord the Germans had logistics to supply their Atlantic Wall, and had big arsenals and magazines along the Wall. They were not thinking “small”. Perhaps “big war” versus “small war” refers to working to a coherent strategic plan as opposed to reactive tactical operations? During the first 48 hours of Overlord, the Allies did not progress as far as desired. The Americans were delayed by the slaughter at Omaha. Instead of racing 6 km along country roads to capture Carpiquet Airfield against negligible opposition just after twilight on 6 June 1944, the CO of 9th Canadian Brigade ordered his men to settle for the night in and around the village of Villers-les-Buisson. Montgomery had to order this Brigade and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers, (a Canadian regiment of Sherman tanks) to capture the airfield on 7 June. During the night the 12th and 21st SS Panzer Divisions gathered in the area to attack the beachhead, and the 25th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment installed itself between Villers-les-Buisson and Carpiquet. At 07:45 on 7 June, the tardy Canadian tank column crept out of Villers-les-Buisson and snailed to the deserted village of Authie, only arriving there at 13:00. The Fusiliers and Nova Scotians then crawled on to the hamlet of Franqueville, 1½ km from Carpiquet Airfield. The single-file queue of Canadian vehicles was over 3 km long. The Germans were hidden behind hedges, ridges, and copses. When Col. Kurt Meyer ordered his men to open fire, they used just 40 anti-tank rounds to destroy 21 of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers’ tanks and damage 7 more. Many other Canadian vehicles were immediately destroyed. In the ensuing fight, the Germans lost just 9 outdated Mk IV tanks. "Big war" thinking? According to Antony Beevor’s “D-Day, The Battle for Normandy”, (Penguin Books, 2010), Montgomery set the British 3rd Infantry Division the objective of seizing the major town of Caen on D-Day, but “failed to put in place the equipment and organization of his forces to carry out such a daring stroke.” Was this “big war” thinking? The early bombing of Caen was also a bad decision that had made the town easy to defend and difficult to attack. For 7 weeks American generals queried the British failure to breakout through Caen. Montgomery only officially changed his goal from capturing Caen and driving through it onto the plain of the Seine, to that of pinning down German armour at Caen, in an order issued on 15 July 1944, 39 days after D-Day, and 3 days before his disastrous Operation Goodwood began at 5:30 a.m. on 18 July. (Montgomery’s commanders confirmed this.) The sacrificial “pinning down” plan B was devised by Montgomery as a cover-up for the failure of Plan A, and was therefore reactive. "Big war" thinking? Apart from Goodwood and Cobra, (the great American sweep through the German lines southwards from the base of the Cotentin Peninsula and then eastwards towards Paris), the Allies were most often fighting tactically in Normandy, and often reactively. It is highly debatable, but one can reasonably argue that the nature of Normandy reduced fighting to tactical operations, so that in this sense, it simply did not allow the Allies and Axis officers to engage in “big war” thinking. If the terms “small war” and “big war” instead concern the inclusion of supply and logistics issues in planning, then one must note that of necessity any seaborne invasion is necessarily a “big war” operation, but that supply and logistics are always a part of any military operation. The German inability to race enough reinforcements and materiel to Normandy was a result of Allied military operations, (including those of the French Resistance), not a result of “small war” thinking on the part of the Germans. So what does James Holland mean?

@francisjohnification

2 жыл бұрын

Very interesting and informative analysis. Thank you for that. Regards from UK.

@barthoving2053

2 жыл бұрын

The focus on big war more seems to go more about equipment choices (Have only watch the video not read the book). You cannot ignore big war or little war and vice versa, it's what you do. Every strategic plan has an tactical execution in the end. The Allies seem to make big war/supplies much more important in their equipment requirements and choices then the Germans. Who were more focused on how it could be the best equipment on the battlefield (the small war) not necessary how easy they could get it on that battlefield in a functional state. Of course production plays a role forcing the Germans to put pretty much everything into service what they have, including what they captured. But for example after Dunkirk the British choose to keep producing two pounders AT instead of six-pounders because they rather have all their units (re)equipped with inferior AT-guns quickly then a superior cannon which might not get to the battlefield in time due to the production switch. The American industrialist had a say in the tank design putting in what they could and could not easy produce and what was already available. Not designing everything from the ground up for maximum performance. The Germans seem to give these things much less importance and clear examples you find more at in the war, when it was already to late. But in the end these are broad strokes. The details can give a different view and experience.

@terrysmith6791

Жыл бұрын

nonsense. The strategy of a war of attrition was spelt out pre-invasion and was not a revision to dave face

@etangdescygnes

Жыл бұрын

@@terrysmith6791 I recommend the last 3 paragraphs on p.142 of Antony Beevor’s “D-Day, The Battle for Normandy”, Penguin Books, paperback edn, 2010. Montgomery formally set the British 3rd Infantry Division the objective of seizing Caen on D-Day, but “failed to put in place the equipment and organization of his forces to carry out such a daring stroke”, (Beevor, 2010). Montgomery officially changed the goal from breakout to that of pinning down German armour in an order written and issued on 15 July 1944, 39 days after D-Day, and 3 days before Operation Goodwood began at 5:30 a.m. on 18 July. Montgomery’s commanders confirmed this, (Beevor, 2010). The sacrificial “pinning down” plan was concocted by Montgomery due to the failure of Plan A, the rapid capture of Caen. For seven weeks the American generals openly queried the British failure to break through Caen, as planned. Montgomery's Operation Goodwood was also a very costly failure due to foreseeable reasons. In the army it became known as "The Death Ride of the Armoured Divisions", and it presaged Montgomery's next bloody disaster, Operation Market Garden. (The failure of the Canadians to advance rapidly to capture Carpiquet Airfield is also on the record - it was also a failure that cost many lives.) For propaganda reasons both Montgomery and Churchill were presented to the British public as heroes. Montgomery's performance can at best be said to have been "mixed", but much to my own surprise, after reading several biographies of Churchill, I was forced to conclude that militarily he was an appallingly incompetent, meddling fool. The real British hero during WW2 was C-in-C Field-Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, who managed to steer the nation to victory in spite of people such as Montgomery and especially Churchill.

@terrysmith9362

Жыл бұрын

@@etangdescygnes I recommend you read some history. For example read Charles B McDonald deputy US army historian research note prepared for the US Military Center on Arnhem . Also Nigel Hamilton, Robin Neillands or in deed the Alanbrooke Diaries on Montgomery's leadership rather than Beavor whose main interest was to maximise his dollar earnings by following the Ambrose example

Love James Holland Great Historan and storey teller

James this is very appreciated!! Its hard to find a realistic take on history nowadays! Hollywood and all that crap loves to twist history.

Just bought #2 in War In The West. Do I wait for #1 to be delivered? Lol. Mr Holland is a smart man and a great narrative voice.

That was really interesting about the tanks

Looking forward to James TV series association with this.

@willwyatt7023

4 жыл бұрын

Is there one in the works?

@DC9622

4 жыл бұрын

Will Wyatt kzread.info/dash/bejne/k66Mk6WtqNPUlLg.html have a look at this 3 episodes apparently. Waiting to see which channel

@richardvernon317

3 жыл бұрын

@@DC9622 Channel 5 in the UK most likely.

An army marches on its stomach. The Red ball express supplied the allies after breaking out of D-Day. It's a really cool thing to learn about.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

Yeah the Red Ball Express was one of the two critical factors in allied victory, the other being Ultra. The drivers, loaders and mechanics that kept that machine going all day, every day, were the real heroes of WWII - unsung and belatedly recognised.

A Brit tanker named Ken Tout (IIRC) noted that for any circumstance other than combat, he preferred the Sherman. Combat? Maybe not. The Brits at least had a proportion of Fireflys with 17pdr guns. This author summed it up pretty well. I served in tanks for a while (hated it ) but learned much. They are big, delicate babies...

@dannyhalas9408

2 жыл бұрын

According to the Chieftain, fireflies weren't combat worthy and no more dangerous than regular Shermans. Because the 17 pounder when mounted on the Sherman chassis wasn't accurate except at ranges when a regular 75mm gun could have penetrated anyway. You add to that the smoke obscuring the next shot, the tremendous recoil, and how cramped everyone was the thing really was a liability. But it had a bigger gun so I suppose it competes with the Tiger-Panther top trumps stats competition.

@californiadreamin8423

2 жыл бұрын

@@dannyhalas9408 Danny have you read the Diary of Jake Wardrop ? He was there, the Chieftain wasn’t.

@dannyhalas9408

2 жыл бұрын

@@californiadreamin8423 No I haven't, and to be honest although I'm sure it's a gripping read first-hand accounts are notoriously unreliable. Memory can play tricks on you, the terror and excitement of battle can really colour what people think is happening, also one soldier's personal experience might not be indicative of the situation on the whole front. Concrete evidence is provided by the American army's ornaments branch who branded the firefly unfit for service. They did plenty of exhaustive tests showing that the upgraded gun was worse than useless. It's why the Americans didn't use them. The chieftain has the archival research. He is also driven and been in all the machines he's talked about with his custodial job at Bovington Tank Museum. He really does know them inside out, the guy's a decorated tank veteran himself. I would check out the chieftains youtube channel for yourself, It's what I love about history everything you assume to be true is often much more interesting.

@californiadreamin8423

2 жыл бұрын

@@dannyhalas9408 Danny I think you should read the Diary of Jake Wardrop. He was killed near the end of the war. The up gunned Sherman’s were available to the US forces, but they were not considered necessary. I do watch videos occasionally by the Chieftain, but in general they don’t do much for me . I’m surprised to read that the 17 pdr was considered worse than useless. It put payed to Michael Wittman in his Tiger. This conversation is beginning to become political, which is possibly why I don’t follow the Chieftain. I believe that Videos are no substitute for reading as widely as possible on this topic.

@dannyhalas9408

2 жыл бұрын

​@@californiadreamin8423 No, they were considered uncombat worthy and Fireflies were not available for American forces It's a statement of historical record. As for further reading I'd recommend the US ballistic reports that clearly show that for all the penetrating power of the 17 pounder gun it was too inaccurate to work well in a M10 chassis. The Sherman 88 was just as good at penetrating German armour at the rangnes you could realistically hit with the firefly. So why bother? Also the shells were so comically huge you really didn't get many shots. And I don't see how this conversation is political, I'm English. I think it's very important in life to evaluate evidence that challenges your worldview and weigh up what you think of things. Nationalism doesn't come into this at all. I've read plenty on World War II related subjects, I doubt one person's diary is going to change my mind. Athough if it's a good read I might consider it. The fact that anyone managed to hit anything with a firefly is a real testament to the skill of the tankers that used them, Michael Wittman being taken out by one doesn't mean anything on it own. Valentine tanks with 2 pounder guns were taking out tigers in the desert. That was the fate of the world's only working Tiger tank, knocked out by Valentine in Tunisia.

Just bought this book on Kindle

The German flexibility due to their limited resources, vs. the allied sluggishness due to their sheer size perfectly describes the Battle of the Bulge. Germany had their initial success. But when the weather cleared up, it was game over for them. Because by that time the allies had methodically organized their counteroffensive.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

Wars and battles are won and lost on two things: intelligence and logistics. All the flashy tanks and drugged up soldiers and flexible tactics amount to diddly squat if you can't supply your troops and don't know where your enemy is. That's the pure and simple reason the Nazis lost. They had inferior intelligence and their logistics was crap. Plus the allies had not just air superiority, but air supremacy. Between the concentrated artillery and ground attack aircraft, those flashy panzer divisions were creamed time and again.

James Holland Knows his History! he was in the TV Series Hunting Hitler, which was Brilliant!

A comment on numbers of Panzer divisions facing the British and Canadians in Normandy being the largest number in the war in one battlefield. I would suggest that there were more on the south side of the Kursk bulge in July1943 at the time of the German attack, all ready to attack at one time. Problem for the Germans in Normandy is the panzer forces arrived in driblets and immediately thrown into the battle.

i love how historians cosplay a little with their wardrobes lol. they just love their time period so much they end up buying reminiscent clothing.

Shari and me flew to Paris from SFO in June 2014. I wanted to be in Caen on June 6th and I was. I never saw the beach.😐🇺🇸🇬🇧🇨🇦 #capitalcities #safeandsound #paris #caen #panzerlehr #marigny

I’m glad someone’s mentioning the support personnel the traditionally unsung heroes Without them the war wouldn’t have been won , can’t fight without ammo , food , water , machines ……boots !

Great to hear a historian debunking the "tiger" superiority maintained by those who have a small scale view of tank warfare. The Sherman was a great tank, I would argue it was the greatest all round tank of the war in terms of maintenance and flexibility. Look at how many roles it took on during the war. The German cats really had one one role as heavy battle tanks...ok in defensive concealed positions....vulnerable in open manoeuvring warfare. The Blitzkrieg of 1940 could never have been possible with the later war German heavy tanks.

@RobBCactive

2 жыл бұрын

The film of fighting where tanks catch fire and their shots bounce off panzers affects people greatly. Most people regard a Ferrari as superior to a Toyota, despite the impracticality and expense. Logistics and supply simply aren't interesting to most people, so D-day novelties like the Mulberry harbours and the fuel supply pipeline are ignored.

@TheOppl

2 жыл бұрын

I'd definitely agree with that. The sheer versatility of the Sherman chassis is incredible. Everything from flamethrowers to howitzers to self-propelled guns to tank-killers to AT guns to artillery... Just about everything was mounted on that chassis at some point. The Sherman was an incredible tank - the perfect balance between all-round effectiveness, versatility, cost and performance. Not only were Tiger and Tiger II tanks expensive and not produced in high numbers, but they were so damn heavy they couldn't cross bridges and fords that tanks like Shermans could. Not to mention the maintenance problems. The inability to move freely is a serious detriment to a tank that will always be outnumbered and cannot afford to be out of position.

@jurgen6768

2 жыл бұрын

The Tiger 1s had a reasonable good success rate on the Ost Front , mainly due to the vast open 'steppes' etc in that they could engage the Soviets at long distances . In Normandy this was not possible plus the western allies had air superiority . Holland is right in saying that the Tiger and Panther required a higher degree of maintenance than the M4 but he tends to be quite dismissive of the Panzer Divisions and their fighting capabilities , in fact he rarely provides a balanced view but an opinionated one. Over the years I've had the pleasure to meet both veterans of the UK/Canadian and German tank/panzer crews and one thing that stood out was the confidence the German veterans had in their equipment as opposed to the lack of confidence the UK/Canadian veterans had. The M4 Sherman was good in that over 50000 were made and it had sufficient fuel and spare parts for on the field repairs and of course it's engineered simplicity to that of the 'over engineered' Pzkpfw V & VI's. As far as firepower and protection were concerned , well the Panzers had the upper hand and it was fortunate for the Allies that the Germans had limited access to fuel et al .

@RobBCactive

2 жыл бұрын

@@jurgen6768 Close air support and heavy artillery was important to counter the Panzers. I've read/seen accounts too and in Normandy allied armour was not effective until they added blades to cut through the boccage hedgerows to cut through fields rather than be funneled along narrow roads

@raisingbarssince1978

2 жыл бұрын

As a former tank driver I can tell you that it is not a myth and that the tiger was by all standards the better tank.

The Sherman and it's Soviet counterpart the T-34 were much simpler than even German Mk4 Panzer workhorse and available in, as you say vast quantities. The Germans overengineered their tanks.

Very Excite

Did Dring have a 17pdr or 75mm? The photo of Akilla which is meant to be his tank shows what looks like a 17pdr..and other reports say his tank had a 17pdr....Telegraph...'Dring caught the glint of a Panther tank. He immediately went in for the kill, quickly knocking it out. Minutes later he used his 17-pounder to destroy a second tank, then took out two more. '. Always like historians telling us how great the Sherman was....funny how the crews themselves weren't so convinced. The real quality of the Sherman was its quantity and the fact that the Top Brass were willing to sacrifice the crews as a price worth paying and didn't want the large scale Sherman production interrupted by the designing and retooling for a better vehicle....though mass production of the 17pdr would have been the easiest solution. '“Whoever was responsible for supplying the army with tanks is guilty of supplying material inferior to its enemy counterpart for at least two years or more,” one an angry armoured cavalry lieutenant told the New York Times in March 1945. “How anyone can escape punishment for neglecting such a vital weapon of war is beyond me.”' 'Lack of a principal gun with sufficient penetrating ability to knock out the German opponent has cost us more tanks, and skilled men to man more tanks, than any failure of our crews- not to mention the heartbreak and sense of defeat I and other men have felt when we see twenty-five or even many more of our rounds fired, and they ricochet off the enemy attackers. To be finally hit, once, and we climb from and leave a burning, blackened, and now useless pile of scrap iron. It would yet have been a tank, had it mounted a gun.'

@Cailus3542

2 жыл бұрын

It's a weird thing. The Americans got a decent tank in 1942 then said "yep, that'll do us for the next few years.". The British had some rather iffy tanks at the start of the war then continually developed better tanks throughout the conflict, ultimately ending up with good tanks such as the Comet, Cromwell, Firefly (yes, I know it was a modified Sherman) and post-war Centurion. The Germans had some rather excellent tanks at the start of the war, developed even better tanks, then kept on needlessly developing even bigger and better tanks at considerable cost. The Soviets had an excellent tank, built an even better tank, then built enough of them to drown the Germans in a vast ocean of Soviet steel. The Italians and the Japanese...uh...yeah, the less said about them, the better. The contrast of philosophy is interesting, to be sure.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

The Shermans were easily maintained and very dependable with mass produced parts that were interchangeable,The Germans should have stuck to the Stugs and Panzer IVs models that had been tested and dependable.But with all the different models the reich produced supply chains were too thin and pickings were indeed slim

You can make tea out of the dandelions behind you and so could the British soldiers . If you wanted chocolate in your rations maybe you should have brought it up with Churchill

Logistics are of critical importance. Keeping the armies supplied with rations, fuel, ammunition etc. The western Allies were very, very good at getting logistics right.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

Correct quality,quantity and logistics - the Wehrmacht couldn't match that

the Germans used horses....the allies had trucks

Riviting storytellet way to GO!

This is quite a video.

By the way, you made a sale with this. I just bought the book.

While the Panther had a far better gun for anti-tank work, the Sherman had the better gun for fighting infantry and anti-tank guns (their main opponents in this campaign) due to it having a shell with a higher amount of high explosive.

@TTTT-oc4eb

2 жыл бұрын

The Panther's HE shell had about the same amount of HE filler as the Sherman's 75mm; 0,65 kg vs 0,68 kg. German high velocity guns fired their HE shells at a lower velocity than their AP shells - 700m/s vs. 939m/s for the KwK 42 in the Panther.

james...you forget to mention operation goodwood..648 m4s lost..5 man crews...milton coooperss worth a read

Mention the numbers of crew that died in Shermans to keep the record straight. A Sherman was a sitting duck for a Tiger and there are so many stories about single Tigers or Panthers taking six or more Shermans out just because the Shermans had too small guns and had to get in close from the right angle. That's why The Pershing was developed, The Pershing was the only allied tank that could match the German tanks in range and even face to face. Luckily the Germans finally ran out of gear...

I read somewhere how many jerry cans the Germans used vs the number of gas cans the US used in Europe. Can't remember the #s now.

go jim!

9:59 You take account of the 47.0000 shermans, and then you say so much Tiger 1 and so much Tiger 2, the last two are very heavy tanks, The sherman could only be compared to the Pz IV or the Panther. Those two where the medium tanks of the German army, not the 2 Tiger types, those are heavys who only where ordered in fews.

@nickshepherd1935

2 жыл бұрын

Approximately 8500 Panzer IV (all variants) and 6000 Panther, they are still a mile behind. He does bring in the Panther figure (though is slightly high).

@ondrejdobrota7344

2 жыл бұрын

In comparison to Sherman, Panther was HEAVY TANK. It was medium only among German tanks.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

and much more mobile than the bigger tanks that had transmission problems because of their weight.also getting across bridges was a big problem.Probably better in the wide open east insteas of the hills,rivers,ravines and valleys in the west

Sherman is my favourite tank

The Sherman. Speed, maneuverability, reliability and there was a LOT of them.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

And adaptability, from the funnies on the beaches, to the hedge cutters, to the bulldozers, and the many other adaptations, collectively they proved superior to the Hodge podge collection of oddities the Germans made.

CCKW & Mack

Who had to remove the poor blokes who died inside tanks ??

Interesting thoughts about the efficiency of the war after America was thrust into it. However, as I have matured, I have become ever more fascinated by the almost insane decision by Churchill and the concurrence of the British people to reject peace offers from Hitler when they stood alone - against a conquered Europe that was allied with the Soviet Union and Japan, with no prospect of any aid from the US. Almost certainly the only reason the light of civilization did not die out in 1940. I would like to learn more about this critical period.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

The real history of WWII is in the intelligence war and the logistics war. Learn that and you'll understand why the outcome was never in doubt after 1941. In fact, after Jan 1940, when the first Ultra decrypts came on stream, the British always knew who, what, where and when. The war was won then, it was always a matter of time and logistics.

@kyle381000

3 ай бұрын

After Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" debacle, there was no way any British PM was ever going to enter into a peace treaty with Hitler. It simply was not an option. Further, Churchill had a good idea that any 'accommodation' made between Germany and the Soviets would not last, mainly because Churchill knew that Stalin and Hitler would never be satisfied with the prevailing borders between them. They were going to fight sooner or later, and Hitler got things started by invading the Soviet Union in June 1941. Hitler expected a short summer war because he vastly underestimated the ability of the Soviet armies, and instead got into an extended winter war for which the German forces were significantly unprepared. Eventually Germany found itself fighting a two-front war which it would never come close to winning.

A bloke near where I live owns the only civilian Challenger tank in Great Britain

@bigwoody4704

Жыл бұрын

Does he have enough cash to fill it up?

Funny how James neglect the fact that Tiger tanks were designed to be powerful and could easily outgun a Sherman, and russian T-34 alike .. In fact, the Tiger 88mm gun could hit targets over a mile away .. Shermans had a much smaller 75mm Gun, and had hardly any effect on a Tigers massive armor .. Tha changed at the end of the war, with firefly sherman, which had a much more powerful gun .. Michael Whitmann (a german tiger ace) fell victim of such a tank, firefly, at the end of the war in Normandy

Sgt Dring and his crew can be seen here in this short clip kzread.info/dash/bejne/fYl9r6qpXZO2e9o.html

You realise Germany was destined to lose against the military complex machine...

Alright. Well I just want to say that the way you described why the Sherman was the best tank, was that it was the best tank for the Americans. Yes they had to ship them, yes they had to take it over pontoon bridges because the Germans blew up the proper ones and yes for all those purposes it was great. Tho it still does not really qualify as the best tank in my eyes. It all depends what situation you are in. In a defensive position the tiger and panther was a far greater tank for the Germans then the Sherman would have been. In general taken everything in consideration I would say that the T-34 85 was the best tank of the war, but in pure quality nothing beats the panther tho it was way over engineered for its intended purpose.

The most primitive military strategy is to confront the enemy with a huge number of attackers such that his defense is overwhelmed. So what ?

@bubiruski8067

2 жыл бұрын

With the help of the western oligarchs this could happen.

Logistics is what wins war

AND 1 TIGER COULD AND DID DESTROY 20 SHERMANS AT A TIME. AND WHEN A TIGER WAS DISABLED THE CREWS MOSTLY SURVIVED, UNLIKE A SHERMAN CREW.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

Nice myth. Almost all tigers and panthers were smashed up before they got near the front by artillery and ground attack aircraft. Those that did get there usually were out of petrol due to the inept German supply chain, or broke down and couldn't be fixed because of the same thing. Ultra intelligence always let the allies know who was coming and where they were going. Between intelligence and logistics, the German defeat was always a matter of when, not if.

Chicken? On a tank?

The Sherman analysis was quite one sided... Certainly Shermans were very easy to maintain, yes. They were made to be easy to transport, yes. All valid points of course. But there weren't any tactical advantages mentioned (besides quick fire which is very relative) and those tactical advantages are the real points and what made all the difference on a tactical level, which for any designed weapon, that was ultimately its true propose, to be an effective fighting machine.

@NicoakaRedCat

2 жыл бұрын

the point he makes is the Sherman was design to win the war considering the operational aspect (easy to build, transport and maintain) while later German tanks focused on tactical aspects

@TTTT-oc4eb

2 жыл бұрын

The Sherman - for some (patriotic) reason the only tank in history excused from being measured against the "Holy Tank Triangle"; firepower, armor and mobility - because it was outclassed in all categories by one of its main opponents. Instead all sorts of excuses are made to make it "the best tank of the war". Imagine the scandal it would have been today if an US army had been sent overseas with a MBT that could not penetrate the frontal armor af an enemy MBT even at point blank range, while he could one-shot you through your thickest armor from 2000+ meters. The Sherman was a high quality vehicle, but a mediocre combat tank that was perfectly adequate on the strategical level as part of an army that was overwhelmingly superior in numbers, material, firepower and airpower. On the tactical level it was much more controversial - hardly a single Sherman crew member would claim it was the equal, let alone superior, to the Panther. Far more Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by heavy bombers on the factory floor than by Western Allied tanks and tank destroyers.

@jonpick5045

2 жыл бұрын

@@TTTT-oc4eb The whole point of the author's argument is that the operational level is more important than the tactical level. Wars are won at operational level, not tactical. It doesn't matter if your Panther can knock out 3 Shermans because there is ALWAYS a fourth (and a fifth & a sixth). The second point is that the Sherman COULD knock out the PZ IV, most of the SP guns, the PAKs and the 'faust & 'shreck teams head on, and that's what the Germans had lots of. Panthers & Tigers were uncommon and finding a sightline of 2000+ metres in much of Western Europe is probably even less common. The Sherman wasn't the best tank of the war but it was the best tank for America. Because America had to ship it overseas, to Europe, to the Pacific, to Burma and the Sherman worked everywhere. The Germans only had to operate their tanks in Europe after 1942.

@TTTT-oc4eb

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonpick5045 Of course the strategical and operational level is more important than the tactical level - that is still no excuse for sending into combat a standard tank that cannot reliable penetrate one of its main opponents front armor even at point blank range - with the effect this has on tank crews moral. There's a reason why USA's MBT of today is the equal of any MBT in the world. Having the best tank on BOTH the strategical and tactical level doesn't need to be a contradiction. Despite its many disadvantages, the British had the right idea with their Firefly conversions - having a gun that can take on anything is invaluable for moral. A tank that not only caused one, but two "tank scandals" and was highly controversial among its own crews cannot be "the best tank" of any nation. The Sherman had good upgrade potensial, but this wasn't really taken advantage of until very late in the war, and AP firepower remained a concern till the end. Panthers were not uncommon - by late 1944 it was as common as the PzIV. Long range fighting was common as soon as they crossed into Germany. USA was late to the European war and was playing "catch up" almost right till the end. In late 1942/early 1943 the Sherman was one of the best tanks of the battlefield. But at the same time the Germans were fielding the Tiger, and the Panther was well under way - both tanks that took the Allies by surprise. Armor upgrade to the PzIV and better Panzergranate 39 also was a nasty surprise. When the Panther finally was combat ready - spring 1944 - there was only a year left of the war - very limited time to catch up and improve on ammo quality, bigger guns etc. They did come up with better armor quality (large-hatch Shermans), HVSS, Jumbos, M36 TDs, and eventually the M26, but then the war was almost over. It wasn't that the Sherman was hopelessly bad, but it could easily had been better - especially in the gun/ammo department. Due to the limited amount of armored warfare in the West, the deficience in the standard ammo for the 76mm and 90mm guns weren't discovered until late 1944. If the 76 mm had standardrounds of the same quality as the Panzergranate 39, it would have much more dangerous even to the Panther and Tiger.

@jonpick5045

2 жыл бұрын

@@TTTT-oc4eb Thank you for a detailed and interesting response. However, I feel that it remains resolutely and relentlessly focused on the tactical level. I would also say that in 1942-3 you couldn't make a tank that was both tactically and operationally ideal. It would either be compromised operationally like the Tiger/Panther or compromised tactically like the T-34/85 and the Sherman. Given that the operational level is far more important than the tactical level then it was the right decision at the time to proceed with a tank that was tactically less than ideal (as you amply illustrate). Furthermore, it would have been impossible for America to build, distribute & maintain an operationally compromised tank across the global theatres, fighting Panthers in NW Europe is less than 1% of the Sherman's combat requirements! It would have taken longer to build & used far more resources per tank. It would have been far harder to transport, could 1940s New York dockyard cranes handle weights above that of a Sherman? Would this 'yankpanther' have fitted into a landing craft? Would a necessarily heavier, more complex & less reliable tank have been viable in Burma, the Aleutians and in island-hopping? No, it wouldn't. Could the Americans have produced a better medium than the Sherman & upgraded the gun, AP & armour sooner? Yes, of course but that's hindsight speaking. The Sherman was the best of the tanks put forward in response to the specification and feedback from combat units was mixed as to the requirement for upgrades. Virtually all the Allies 'war winning' weapons (P-51, Fletcher Class destroyers, Sherman) were in service by 1943 and although better weapons (Me262, Type VII U-Boat, Pershing) appeared in late 44-45 they were too late to impact upon the course of the war.

I respect this man, but I read his book and there is clear bias towards the allies in Normandy. Few things to fact check. Firstly no the allies did not face the largest concentration of German armour in ww2 (2000) that was against the Russians at Kursk (2500). The traversal speed of the Sherman is marginally better than the p4 (equivalent). The other thing readers really need to be aware of, is yes it’s important to recognise the advantages of the Sherman, but he fails to mention the advantage of the Panther. At all. Omitting them in detail. The panthers gun is superior. The gun sighting is superior. The armour is superior. In most cases , those divisions that received panthers in Normandy are battle tested, so there’s an argument for experience. They’re also primarily fighting in defensive stature over ground of their choosing. I also would heavily caution the favourability of the slow grind of attrition. Many historians have rebuked this claim and said a decisive thrust whilst incurring casualties in the short term would have shortened the war.

@richardcaves3601

7 ай бұрын

This is all very well in the abstract, but the reality was those wonderful looking panthers and tigers were at the end of a crap supply chain, and most of them didn't get near the front, because they were smashed up by artillery and ground attack aircraft. When the few that got through, did get there, they were hopelessly outnumbered. That's why seven panzer divisions and 20+ ordinary divisions got chewed up by Epsom, Goodwood and the other Normandy battles. Once Patton broke out at Avaraches, collapse of the Normandy front rapidly followed. Hitler's stupid orders merely hastened the end.

❣️🇬🇧🇺🇲🇨🇦

T-34 Was also a simple effective piece of kit for the russians

The odd chicken and what have you

Jame Holland is not historian, thats why he didnt research this campaign. I just bought this book and immediately spotted huge error in losses. OB West losses from June to August 1944 were only 288 698. When you cut out losses in the South, you will see the ugly truth of Normandy campaign. Allied losses were BIGGER then German!!!! Yes, with all possible advantages you could ever immagine and Falais disaster!!!!

Sorry but the Sherman tank was nothing compared to the tiger...don't know what facts the author is basing his opinion on or its just his personal preference, but he does not understand a lot about tanks.

Everything he said also applied to Vietnam, Desert Storm and Iraq/Afghanistan. The reason so few Americans and other allies died in Desert Storm is so many Iraqi's were killed, tanks and armor destroyed in such a short time span an open desert war with no jungle to hide under. The American way of war is to trade steel and technology for their enemies lives. Problem is when they face an enemy like the North Vietnamese or Taliban that is more than willing to trade lives for time...America will always give up, because the cost in steel and technology (and comparatively few lives, but each American life is considered ultimately more "valuable") just becomes too much to bear over years or decades. Future American enemies....take note.

It's not armchair historians, it's professional historians who compare it to the Eastern Front, where the real fighting of the war took place. D-Day was a sideshow in comparison.

@hughbo52

2 жыл бұрын

It was the "sideshow" Stalin had been begging for.