Monty knew exactly what he was doing he was being called for heavy infantry loss and he needed the german armour in front of him to stay there and if possible draw in more and this happened, he could afford to lose tanks but not infantry goodwood was a victory in the sense that he dictated to the germans rather than the other way around, before long the germans would be in headlong retreat and the long march to berlin could begin, great effort HE subscribed for more. love to all.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

Great comment. You’ve nailed it. So glad you enjoy the channel it’s only going to get better and better as I improve. I’ve got a series coming up from the ground in Normandy soon too 👍 I really appreciate your support

@gunhojput

10 ай бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer I will look forward to that being an normandy addict that i am, i love utube in regard to all these great programs put out by artists like yourself.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

That’s very kind. Thank you

A lot of people said that Monty went too slow but he tied up a lot of german forces in this area enabling the us army to come around from the south.. Incidentally my father fought at cagny with the 7th guards armoured division, he was in the coldstream guards. My brother and I took him back there in 1976 and he showed us a farm yard at cagny that they attacked south of the paris rail line. Beyond the farmhouse was a mansion that they attacked. He said they were throwing grenades at the windows but the glass was that thick they were bouncing off. The farmer came to talk to us and said some germans and local police had visited a few years earlier and had dug up a body of a german soldier near a popular tree in his garden and had then found 2 more germans in a field outside of the farm. He also told me after he had jumped the farm wall he landed near a stable and heard noises from within and threw a greande in. When he went in it had a horse and a cow in it.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment. Very interesting!

Just got home from work, poured a Jack and Coke then got the notification for a new episode YAY love the intro

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Awesome! I hope you enjoy it. I’ve got a new laptop and microphone so hopefully it’s a step to getting better with each video

@Diglett_Dude

Жыл бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer another great episode, I like how you mentioned a few times during the episode that you had more information on certain areas and that this would be divulged in later videos. Suspense!! Love it

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

@@Diglett_Dude I hope you enjoyed it and I really appreciate your support 👍

@Diglett_Dude

Жыл бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer you have a very interesting channel. Now all you need is a patreon or something to help. If I am correct you support one or more charities with the help of these vids. I would definitely donate a few £ per new episode. Not a lot I know, but as they say, every penny counts

Seriously well done. Thanks for the effort you've made here

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thank you buddy I really appreciate it.

I've just started following your channel, you're doing a great job and your more recent videos are just as good if not even better. Seeing so much criticism of Montgomery in the comments (maybe people took Tom Hanks and his "That guy's overrated" too close to heart), I would absolutely love to see what you could produce for Montgomery's pivotal role in the Battle of the Bulge. That would really get the tongues wagging! Thanks again and please keep up the great work. It's clearly a labour of love; you put in the labour, but we all love it. Signing off with the exact words of US General Omar Bradley in an interview with LIFE magazine: "Monty's primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout. In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful"

@thehistoryexplorer

17 күн бұрын

What a great comment. Thank you very much and I’m so glad you enjoy the channel

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

"Deficiencies in infantry-armour integration were again apparent, as the tanks outran their support and suffered at the hands of German tanks and anti-tank guns. Ironically, given Montgomery's desire to spare his infantry, secondary operations by the three infantry divisions on the flanks of the advance outweighed those of the armoured divisions (2,710 compared to 1,149). The rate of loss in the infantry battalions was 9% - twice that of the armoured regiments. 'Goodwood' may not have been the breakout so desperately wanted, but it kept the bulk of the German forces in that sector. So when US forces launched Operation 'Cobra' on 25 July they faced only eleven weak divisions with limited fighting power. 'Cobra' broke the front open southwards from Saint-Lô, and American forces began a headlong advance westwards into Brittany and eastwards towards the Seine. The Germans had kept Allied forces bottled up for six weeks. But in so doing they had reduced themselves to remnants, devoid of reserves and unable to withstand the breakout when it came." IWM Tactics and the Cost of Victory in Normandy page

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

"for Montgomery's pivotal role in the Battle of the Bulge" The Ardennes Offensive Part 03: Forget Bastogne - Head For The Meuse (1980) kzread.info/dash/bejne/i4B53JZxpJqfdaQ.html

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer "The National Army Museum conducted a poll in 2011 to determine Britain’s greatest general. Montgomery’s name was not among the finalists." Bernard Law Montgomery - Military History - Oxford page

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

10 күн бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 The Defiiciences in infantry armour were not apparent during Operation Bluecoat. Pip Roberts rearranged his armoured divisions into brigade sized forces like the Jock Columns in North Africa.

Montgomery's directive was to engage the German armour and wear it down and enlarge the British left flank this was achieved but at cost. Allied intelligence also seriously underestimated the depth of the German defences by around 6 miles.

I've got some questions having watched this but I'm off to the pub! I'll write back later but I really enjoyed this. Good work man

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Enjoy the pub!

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

What were the questions you had?

Excellent video, thank you, the views from the actual German defensive positions especially helpful. My 2p on Op Goodwood;- 1) Monty should have communicated far better with Eisenhower over what was actually expected, even if Monty did have his hands full at the time. 2) It's easy to forget with hindsight what 'should' have been done. The Allied units didn't have the luxury of forming up as they would have liked. There was time pressure on them, & not enough time to clear minefields/add extra bridges/clear up the usual traffic jams/get the right units up, sometimes in the dark on narrow roads with very limited light, made even worse by being bombed, shelled or mortared daily/having to sort out all units & supplies in an area beforehand that was too small in reality. 3) Relentless logistical pressure from behind the Allied lines of units & supplies 'on hold' as the Allies hadn't advanced as planned. The timetables were planned & organised months in advance, & stoppages cause utter chaos. This supply line stretched all the way back to the USA! 4) Allied units advanced into the most heavily defended part of the German line. I've heard it was 5 lines deep, whereas in Russia, the strongest German lines were only 3 lines deep, & had nowhere near the density of troops this area of Normandy had. A Russian military advisor asked what ratio of attacking/defending troops there were, & was surprised to hear the Allies were attacking with far less than what the Russians thought was needed - BUT, the Allies had to attack with what they had, to keep pushing forward, with a chance to breakthrough, or at least win the attrition battle. The Allies knew the Germans were getting short of fuel & reinforcements. 5) Allied troops had to advance uphill, against longer ranged weapons, against dug in opponents (some elite/veteran troops) & good defensive country. Lines of attack were also channelled (especially along the old Bourgebus ridge to Colombelles factory (sp?) train embankment, which only had a few openings, making it easier for the defenders. 6) You can't necessarily move the artillery forward when they have traffic jams in the way. There was only a limited road network (or areas not observed), & it was generally 'managed chaos'. 7) British Infantry/Tank ratio doctrine still wasn't very good (but was improving), & Monty was trying to conserve his troops. Both he & Churchill were acutely conscious of declining manpower numbers. It may have been seen that sending infantry into large open fields under German observation & artillery was even worse (the flipside being problems with armour on it's own). The British training shortcomings were also exposed. A big issue was that the British army didn't have enough area to train their units properly, or in European terrain & urban areas. Although some units had been training for years, the reality of what they faced in Normandy was very different, both in type, complexity & scale, & they had to learn 'on the job', which led to higher casualties. Even the veteran 'Desert Rats' had to unlearn a lot, & learn new tactics. The Allies did learn, & became better & stronger, whilst the Germans grew weaker. 8) The Germans counter attacked with a strong force, but still couldn't push the Allied units back to their start lines, losing valuable resources, & territory. Each advance gave the Allies a chance to unload more units/supplies, & have better jumping off points for the next offensive, & the Germans couldn't compete. Arriving Panzer divisions then had to be strung out to hold the line, & weren't able to be concentrated for a main attack. The Germans had to hold forward lines, to have any chance of pushing the Allies back to the beaches (whether this was actually possible a few days after D-Day is another matter), but the Germans could only go by what their maps & battlefield intelligence was telling them. 9) Whilst the Allies did lose heavily, the Germans couldn't afford what they lost, on the front lines, or units travelling to, or away from the combat zones. Allied air power, breakdowns & lack of fuel took a constant toll. TL:DR Technically Goodwood could have done more, but this is with hindsight. The Allied troops did what they could, with what they had, when & where they could, in the time they had, & fighting all the forces arrayed against them - & still pushed the Germans back, making future offensives more likely to succeed.

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant post! Thank you for sharing.

@ToddSauve

10 ай бұрын

The German generals in the know, and doubtless any officers and men who could count, knew that after a day or two there was no chance of pushing the Allies back onto their beaches following D Day. Allied armour simply piled up too fast and German armour was nowhere near close enough in the strength needed. The Juno beach region was the area best suited for an armoured counterattack but the Canadian right flank advanced so quickly and deeply to Bretteville and Putot that the Germans were on their back foot thereafter. Moreover, twice as much artillery was immediately landed on Juno beach as on literally any other Allied beach because Montgomery and his staff realized this was the prime German target for an armoured counterattack. A thin line of German armour from 21 Panzer did manage to reach the coast between Juno and Sword but fled back when serious naval gunfire convinced them their goal was futile and their survival unlikely. German armoured attacks on Bretteville and Putot from 12 SS and Panzer Lehr were repulsed by the Regina Rifles and Royal Winnipeg Rifles respectively with nasty losses over the period from June 8 to 10, 1944. After that the Germans were never in a position to get anywhere near the beaches and the Allied victory overall was assured.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

@@ToddSauve thank you Todd what a brilliant post. There is a degree of inevitability when we think about the invasion.

@ToddSauve

10 ай бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer Thank you. I knew little about this until I read "Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D-Day" (2014) by Dr. Marc Milner. Marc has been interviewed on Paul Woodage's WW2TV program here on KZread several times. Milner combed recently declassified documents from the Allied archives at Kew in London and found a very different story than had previously been told by most American and British historians. His book is genuinely revisionary (not merely a wannabe) and is recognized by serious historians as authoritative. It is an excellent read and puts a lot of previously believed views in the fable category where they belong. Like the oft-cited belief that Patton was the most feared Allied general, when prior to August 1944 the Germans almost literally didn't know who he was, the 1970 movie "Patton" notwithstanding. 😉 Juno beach was recognized by Montgomery and his Allied planning staff as the only target the Germans could use because it is so wide open and flat--perfect tank country. On the other hand, hedgerows dominated the other Allied beaches making them very unsuitable for a quick panzer counterattack. Once Juno was truly secured by June 10, 1944, the Germans were destined for defeat. Rommel in particular knew this.

I admire your attention to details and professionalism! Great job!

The problems of combined arms were eventually solved when the British introduced homogenous brigades which involved an armoured regiment and a infantry battalion together

15:04. The 12 Armoured Regiments in the 7th, 11th and Guards AD suffered a total of 280 casualties on July 18 and 449 for July 18,19 & 20.

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

It does depend on which source you look at for 18 July. The usual range is between 215-228

@stevekay5486

10 ай бұрын

My father was with 7th guards armoured division and was wounded at La Marvindiere, forgive my spelling of it. He was wounded 5th of august.

@js3m1945

5 ай бұрын

Could be characterised as strategic success and tactical failure. Essentially one armoured division attacked on a narrow front against powerful defence in depth. Question is more why couldn't Allied tactical air have prevented the 1st SS Pz Div from coming to save the day for the Germans?

Ever thought about doing one on Operation Bluecoat?

@thehistoryexplorer

3 ай бұрын

Would love to! My next visit to Normandy in a couple of weeks is all on the western edge of the lodgement. I’d love to do more on the British and Canadian actions in the east

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

3 ай бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer That would be great, and i look forward to more of your content. Bluecoat is an operation that didn't recieve the attention of Cobra, although it did involve a lot more German divisions.

Great vid, enjoy yours very much. Thank you

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thank you Greg I really appreciate the comment. Any suggestions for future videos? Anything you would want to watch?

Great video, my opinion is No, it wasn't a failure. But it was costly. Arm Chair Generaling is an easy job. Thanks again, subbed

@thehistoryexplorer

Күн бұрын

Thanks for watching!

I love this videos it lets you put real places with battles and you get a much better understanding of battles

@thehistoryexplorer

11 ай бұрын

Thank you! So glad you enjoyed it

As I understand it, Monty's plan, agreed with Eisenhower, was to keep the German armour in front of the British and Canadians, between them and Paris, while the Americans break out into the flat plains and sweep around to trap the German forces (parry with the left and punch with the right).

@thehistoryexplorer

11 ай бұрын

Basically yes! Although there are many who believe Monty had intended a breakout with massed armour south of Caen and through the Bourgbois ridge

@johnhood9567

26 күн бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer I understand some have suggested Eisenhower apparently thought Monty had more or less promised that intention and that Ike felt he had been misled to think so. I am not at all sure myself, but I think Montgomery's claim that Goodwood went according to his intention (if not the very heavy losses part of it) was a defensible one, given how the rest of the Normandy campaign turned out.

The most concise easy to follow explanation of this battle i have seen, excellent integration of all material unsure how I have not seen this one. Going next week to have a look around on my motorbike but this may be too much for my mate but will certainly use your info and follow the steps of the battle with your guidance on a future trip. Please keep up the great work, better than much of the pro media thanks very much.,

@thehistoryexplorer

25 күн бұрын

Thank you so much. This video is one of my first and nobody really saw it. Shame as I did a lot of background reading. Have a wonderful time and please let me know if the video helped to get around one the ground

great video thanks! I just subscribed. good quality content mate! Grüße

@thehistoryexplorer

3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! Appreciate it

Good video lad. On a Staff Ride based in Caen this week and just visited the viewpoints you’ve highlighted. Op GOODWOOD, GREENLINE and POMEGRANATE are a fascinating chapter in the Battle of Caen. Plenty wrong with Op GOODWOOD, however it played its role in the wider Battle of Normandy. Keep up the good work.

@thehistoryexplorer

11 ай бұрын

Thank you Jonathan, glad you enjoyed the video. I think goodwood is genuinely fascinating and it’s no wonder the British are obsessed with it!

I’m reading a book about the battle for Normandy from the German perspective. The aerial and naval bombardment leading up to the battle was so intense that some German soldiers committed suicide. Entire battle groups were simply annihilated - ceased to exist. Tanks were flung into shell holes like toys. The Germans knew they were hopelessly out gunned and had no air support but they rode into battle anyway. They knew the battle was hopeless. Quite a horrendous thing to read. I guess things worked out a bit better than they’d hoped.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

Ай бұрын

Quote *“At Tarnopol we endured heavy Russian fire but in Normandy we were hit again and again, day after day by British artillery that was so heavy the Frundsberg [10th SS Panzer Division “Frundsberg,” named after 16th-century German knight and general Georg Von Frundsberg] bled to death before our eyes. It was worst during an attack, theirs or ours, when we would be terribly blasted. I saw grenadiers struck dumb and unable to move and others made mad by the increasing ‘drumfire.’”* So recalled Gunter Balko, an infantryman in the 21th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment, who went on to say that the British artillery was his worst memory of Normandy, when he was fighting for Hill 112.

Really nice job! Well done and the photos and film footage augment your presentation. As a USAF guy, I can’t figure out why they did NOT use massed fighter ground attacks into the tree lines: more accurate than random heavy bombers. Your geolocating place and photos is cool: would like to see advance line overlays too. Thanks and keep up the good work!!

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thank you John I really appreciate the feedback. There was definitely a lack of precision in this campaign and the allies relied on battlefield inoculation rather than targeting.

Thanks for a very interesting video. I learned a lot from it especially the excellent illustrations and on the spot videos. One of the things that comes across to me is the need for infantry, armour, artillery and air power to fight the same battle. I think it was a victory in that it held the Germans and allowed the Americans to break out forcing the German retreat from Normandy. Thanks again, Thoroughly enjoyed the video

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the excellent comment. Combined arms if key! Proven time and time again

Really interesting and informative . Makes one think what beautiful country side secret they hold

12:32 I have tried to source the photo of the pak 88 but have so far been unable to discover where this photo comes from of who took it. It is not in The Canadian archives though film of the same men and 17 pdr taken by Canadian film cameramen exists so the film and still photographers were both there at the same time. There was a post-battle count done of German equipment left on the battlefield and no pak 88 is shown in this position. They are wrecked 88's north, south and west of the claimed location but nowhere near the claimed von Luck position. The single flak 88 found was to the south of Cagny and across the railway line

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Great point and this will be featured in another video looking at the Von Luck claim. Thanks for the comment I really appreciate your insight. There are so many very knowledgable WW2 enthusiasts out there 👍

At 11:40 von Luck is referenced and his claim about the Luftwaffe 8.8cm guns. The location of these guns has never been fixed and apart from von Luck not a scrap of evidence to confirm the story. Worth noting that a Luftwaffe Flak unit would not have pak 8.8cm but rather the standard AA version. Post-battle surveys found a single Flak 88 left at a position south of Cagny and 4 pak 8.8cm guns in various locations around Cagny. von Lucks story may be correct but not at the north of Cagny location. .

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Michael, you’re stealing my sandwiches for a future video! It’s a great story but sadly I think it is fabricated

Very informative video. In my marginally learned opinion Operation Goodwood is something akin to Market Garden in that it’s success or failure is confused by larger issues of nationality and personality. I have trouble believing the sole objective of the operation was to fix German forces, particularly the panzer divisions in place though it did succeed in doing that. It was a failure of combined arms and offensive manoeuvre that did succeed, however, in facilitating Operation Cobra and a resultant breakout from Normandy.

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Bang on Chiller. Great comment 👍

IWM "The British failure to take Caen on D-Day and make progress further inland meant the Germans were able to get sufficient forces into the battle area to contain the Allied armies. 12th SS HitlerjugendDivision proved a particularly formidable opponent. By nightfall on D-Day its lead elements were in position on the left flank of 21st Panzer Division, facing the Canadian 3rd Division. Over the next few days the fanatical SS formation made repeated attempts to drive a wedge through to the sea. The Canadians held the SS at great cost but were prevented from continuing their own advance further south, and could only consolidate their positions. By 9 June the German Army’s elite Panzer Lehr Division had also arrived. It took up position west of Hitlerjugend, opposing British 50th Division around Tilly-sur-Seulles, south of Bayeux. These three formations formed the main defence for Caen, but plans for a major counterattack had to be abandoned as a result of Allied air attacks." The German Response to D-Day page

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

The division's advance to the areas near the British-Canadian landing beaches of Sword and Juno proceeded slowly due to Allied air attacks. The first units of the 12th SS reached their assembly area near Evrecy at 22:00 hours on 6 June but the Panther battalion ran out of fuel east of the Orne River.[11] According to Marc Milner, "[t]his was just the first example of sloppy staff work and command and control that characterized 12th SS Division's experience in the beachhead battles".[12] Marc Milner is a Canadian military and naval historian, author of several books including one novel. He is Director of the Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society at the University of New Brunswick.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 күн бұрын

Thanks for sharing

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

10 күн бұрын

Excerpted from "Appreciation on Possible Development of Operations to Secure a Lodgement Area", produced by 21st Army Group Planning, May 7, 1944 (one month before D-Day). This was forwarded to First US Army Group, among others, on 18 May under a covering letter which reads in part, "With regard to the outline of action at Part IV, this represents the Commander-In-Chief's [Montgomery's] intentions as far as they can be formulated at this stage." IV. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS "The type of country immediately South of the initial bridgehead does not favour a rapid advance. The Allied build-up relative to the estimated German build-up indicates that a period may supervene round about D+14, when there will be a grave risk of operations stabilising on a line which gives the Germans advantages in defence. The greatest energy and initiative will be required at this period to ensure the enemy is not allowed to stabilise his defence." "Once through the difficult bocage country, greater possibilities for manoeuvre and for the use of armour begin to appear. *Our aim during this period should be to contain the maximum enemy forces facing the Eastern flank of the bridgehead, and to thrust rapidly toward Rennes."* "On reaching Rennes our main thrust should be towards Vannes; but diversionary thrusts with the maximum use of deception should be employed to persuade the enemy that our object is Nantes." *"If, at this time, the enemy weakens his Eastern force to oppose us North of Redon, a strong attack should be launched toward the Seine."* Source - Charles Perry Stacey in the Victory Campaign page 83.

In John Keegan's absolutely riveting work of genius "Six Armies in Normandy", which I'm just finishing up (must read if you haven't BTW) he gives a harrowing account of the horror of Goodwood, in which he likens the engagement to Waterloo, with the Germans as Wellington's army and the British in the role of the French, and it's a very compelling analogy of the grand tactical situation (i.e. a mobile attacking force attacking over open ground uphill, against a well sited defensive force with plenty of cover) But it reminds me of another earlier and equally famous British battle, only this time the British are reprising their own earlier role rather than that of their enemy; can you guess which one I'm thinking of? Hint: Tennyson got a bloody good poem out of it. Ok I'll give it to you. The Charge of the Light Brigade, Balaklava, Crimean War 1854. An excellently motivated and disciplined cavalry force attacks onto heights crowned with enemy guns, the attackers virtually unsupported by infantry, with a predictable result. Is it just me or is there a slight taste of history repeating itself there? But of course, I think Montgomery's move was certainly more calculated, where Lucan, Cardigan and Captain Nolan were acting out a tragicomic opera of error and miscommunication. At any rate, those poor British tankers certainly paid a heavy price to facilitate US maneuver for Operation Cobra. Great content, much appreciated!

@thehistoryexplorer

25 күн бұрын

Fabulous comment! Thank you for sharing. I’m so glad you enjoyed the video and there are many lessons to be taken from operation GOODWOOD which we can apply today

@johnhood9567

25 күн бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer thanks, that awfully kind of you! I've subscribed, and, looking at your back catalogue, I see alot that I will want to look at!

@thehistoryexplorer

25 күн бұрын

I hope you enjoy the videos, many more to come and I’m improving all the time…hopefully!

@johnhood9567

25 күн бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer I'll be watching for new material. Market Garden? 😉

I think if you look at it from the objectives given to Dempsey and the other senior commanders by Monty on the eve of the battle rather than any vague remarks he made about a breakout, the operation was reasonably successful. The main issue with how Operation Goodwood has been looked at is tank losses and the fact it's been calculated differently for the two sides. The losses for Allied tanks have normally been counted by the number of tanks still operational at the end of each day of the operation, even though a large number of those counted as lost will be operational within a couple of days. While the German tank losses only count those tanks which are completely lost and unrecoverable after the end of the operation. So you end up with Allied losses of nearly 500 tanks against German losses of around 100 tanks, but if you use the same type of calculation for both sides, in this case the German system, Allied losses fall to 150-200 while German losses remain the same at 100.

@Diglett_Dude

Жыл бұрын

Interesting.

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Brilliant comment. I had intended to cover three more headings but it just got way too long. I still haven’t found my feet in terms of how much information people want or if less is better. But all of your points are bang on. I hope you enjoyed it 👍

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

Nickel1147 Yes they certainly did. Tiger phobia was a very real condition.. Kelly's Heroes plays on it. There is a documentary on the Tiger with British veterans of the Normandy invasion admitting how fearful they were of lurking Tigers.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

Жыл бұрын

@@Nickel1147 There were Tigers at Villers Bocage, Operation Goodwood and Hill 112. The 102nd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion,Michael Wittmans Heavy SS Panzer Battalion 101 and 3rd company of Tiger Battalion 503. Some of the bloodiest fighting of the Caen campaign happened at Hill 112 where 6 SS Panzer divisions were concentrated, it took 10 weeks of fighting to take back the hill.

@lyndoncmp5751

Жыл бұрын

@@Nickel1147 There were 3 battalions of Tigers in Normandy totalling 126 Tiger Is and 12 Tiger IIs. All were deployed in the British Commonwealth sector yes. The British tankers didn't know where or when one would pop up. The worry about meeting a Tiger was quite substantial particularly after Villers Bocage on June 13th. There were also 623 Panthers and 26 Jagdpanthers sent to Normandy, so that's around 800 big cats in total, all in a pretty restrictive area of frontage. Source. Zetterling, Normandy 1944.

I don't understand how this tank charge was unsupported by infantry 🤨 Isn't the idea of combined arms warfare to use tanks alongside infantry?

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Combined arms integration should have seen the coordination of armour and infantry with a simultaneous bombardment onto likely defensive positions. Instead, due to a lack of infantry and an over reliance on steel the advance as largely unsupported. As the guns were out of range early on they couldn’t provide suppressive fire to fix the defenders

Veterens said when those hidden 88's fired from the edge of that field they could see the wheat part like jesus and the red see and the channel it was making, those that was slogging behind on foot could actually see which tank that big ol shell was was coming for....like that scene in jurassic park with the velocerapters...

@thehistoryexplorer

8 ай бұрын

Amazing. I can well imagine

This is one of the most controversial battles because of a failure to understand how losses are reported in British and German armies. The British used the End of Day Report, which listed all tanks not with the regiment at the end of the day, for whatever reason. The Germans claimed they destroyed 500+ tanks, but EoD Reports listed 352, but of these all but 130 Write-offs were reparable and soon back in action. In contrast the Germans only reported documented Write-Offs and that could take several days. So at Goodwood the Germans initially recorded 75 Write-Off, later adjusted to 107. In reality the battle was much closer than originally reported.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

Brilliant comment. There were differing agendas at the time of GOODWOOD and thing the varying narratives from each camp played a big part in how GOODWOOD was understood by many

@TTTT-oc4eb

8 ай бұрын

The Germans lost 75 tanks and assault guns in the West in the period, and not all of them in Goodwood (Tamelander and Zetterling, 2003). Most of the German losses occured during the initial carpet bombing.

How would you have liked to have been a tanker during this "offensive" ??? There was a reason Parliament was going to open an investigation concerning the losses and the inferiority of allied armour compared to..... this was not a success for Montgomery and almost cost him his command.... There is a great series that utilizes the British sub commanders as well as the German commanders during Goodwood.... we lost something near 413 tanks.... one round from a German Mk IV, Mk. V, Mk VI or 88 or Stug spelled instant disaster for our guys... their optics were so much better that they normally hit the first round until they started using "boys"...... Thanks for your good work Cheers DH

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Thank you DH and I appreciate the interesting comment.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

Жыл бұрын

"we lost something near 413 tanks.." Read the post I put on this video, this figure is not quite accurate.

Operation Cobra happened because Monty was too slow in taking Caen which was supposed to have been taken by the end of day 3 after DDay.

@richardthelionheart6924

3 ай бұрын

Operation cobra happened because monty pulled in 2 german armoured corps into his sector freeing up the americans

I think there's merit to both sides. While Monty may have issued orders to subordinates calling for a more limited holding attack rather than a breakout attempt, that was not the picture portrayed to Eisenhower (who was famously very angry about the ordeal) or the media. There's also the issue with just how poorly planned/executed the whole thing was. The lack of proper infantry support, the tiny axis of advance, the failure to place the artillery properly (and using a freaking creeping barrage like its 1916), seemingly poor recon along said tiny axis of advance. The whole thing was amateurish. It did tie down a lot of the German armor but that doesn't mean it was a good plan or that there weren't better alternatives.

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Great comment. I couldn’t agree more mate. Poor use of combined arms being the key factor for me

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

Жыл бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer From what I have read Richard O Connor was slightly held back by Dempsey during Goodwood, Richard had urged the use of armoured personnel carriers for the British infantry, but Dempsey did not agree to it.

@johnbeavin9170

9 ай бұрын

I strongly agree ith that Jacob.

I honestly cannot consider Operation Goodwood a success. The losses of those tanks that were notoriously outmatched by the German Panzer divisions, were too many. The tank personnel of the Allies were so brave knowing they were so totally outmatched and on a suicidal mission. Sure, the Americans benefited and were able to break out, but the Brits and Canadians were the bait and were swallowed whole. Sometimes I think of Monty as a genius and other times baffled at he outlandish schemes he fights to enact. Anyway, another great video and I repeat, my sincere gratitude for the way you present a balanced view of the battlefield and its combatants.

@thehistoryexplorer

6 ай бұрын

I honestly appreciate your feedback and your kind comments buddy. Thank you so much and I’m glad someone is enjoying my videos 🙏

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

5 ай бұрын

@Mrkaycee7 I don't understand how the way the tanks were used in Goodwood was Monty's problem though. As an Army Group commander Monty's job was to give the operational goals, everything else was left to his subordinates. The blame should go to Dempsey, Crocker, O Connor or their subordinates, or maybe to overall British doctrine. It should be noted out that the tank losses of the British (often quoted on here as 400) were *repaired* within 24 hours and in fact were actually 150-200 tanks. The Germans suffered around 100 tanks and self propelled guns all of which were *total losses/destroyed - non repaired.* though at least 17 of the German tanks lost in the battle were Tigers and over 30 of those were Panthers, and each of these was much more of a loss to the Wehrmacht than the loss of a Sherman or Cromwell was to the British. After all even after Goodwood, the British had another 500 tanks still piling up on the beaches of Normandy. After the destruction in the Falaise Pocket less than 100 German tanks out of 2,500 made it back to Germany while Monty had over 2,400 tanks in 21st Army Group alone. So as you can see, in the long run, the attritional impact was worse for the Germans than it was for the British. It should also be noted that the Germans suffered personal losses of at least *7,000 men* compared to the Allies 5,000 men in this battle.

Yeah, well..that's how we learn. You could say that this battle is the reason that the A10 Warthog exists...

@thehistoryexplorer

Жыл бұрын

Can you imagine if an aircraft with that firepower had been available…

@g8ymw

Жыл бұрын

@@thehistoryexplorer What surprised me was the lack of close air support for the offensive I would have thought that this would be ideal Tiffy hunting ground, taking out the artillery pieces while they were busy with the tanks

@ronhall9039

3 ай бұрын

@@g8ymw Hello - I agree with your observation however I remember reading somewhere that the Forward Air Controller allocated to this operation became a casualty very early on and the Brits lost a very important resource. Now I've always wondered why there were not replacements to step up asap, however I suppose there was a interservice issue between the RAF and the Army when it came to releasing trained pilots for this role. Nowadays the Gunner FOO's (Forward Observation Officer) are trained in calling in air support, but even then the pool of expertise is not enough to cover all theatres. I recently read a book about the Brits in Afghanistan and there was an unfortunate Bombardier (full corporal) who had to do tour after tour in country because he was so good as Forward Air Controller and they couldn't organise a replacement for that particular part of the country.

Even though the heavy bombers weren't used much for tactical bombing and in this battle didn't accomplish what it was meant to, Operation Cobra had better success. I believe it would have been better used more in a tactical manner instead of the strategic terror bombing campaign used and cherished by Bomber Harris, it would have been more effective. The strategic bombing campaign eventually seen its fruits in the last year of the war and was but one part of an overall plan to defeat Germany, but was it worth it when you compare how many airmen were lost? One way that the heavy bombers were used extremely effective was in the bombing of the oil refineries.

Considering general Montgomery's history and the fact that he was an osterman. The number one concern I have is why would he sacrifice his countrymen just to give The knockout moves to the colonials The Americans?

@thehistoryexplorer

Ай бұрын

I’m not sure he saw it as sacrificing his men. He sacrificed equipment and materiel for sure, but GOODWOOD was part of an operational scheme of manoeuvre

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

Ай бұрын

Ever heard of the strategy known as the "Hammer and Anvil"? well the British and Canadians were to play the anvil to pin and destroy German armour reserves while the US, the hammer, breakout. It all worked as part of Monty's Overlord strategy.

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

He spun it that way after the fact. "While during the planning there had been lofty talk, from Montgomery especially, of driving beyond Caen on D-Day, deep concern had also been expressed that the entire enterprise might fail." The Days After D-Day: What Happened Next page

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

10 күн бұрын

@@nickdanger3802 I don't know why you posted that when Canadian Historian Dr. Brad St.Croix presented counter evidence to the point that said it was part of the plan in "Was Saving Private Ryan Right to blame Monty?"

Success of failure is not the question. It should never have happened. Monty was supposed to take Caen by day three but he failed. To Take Caen cost over 400 tanks and 80 to 100 thousand men. The reason for the battle was not to hold the Germans there. If they had spread across the whole front in force they would have been too weak to hold any attack no matter where it took place.

@richardthelionheart6924

3 ай бұрын

No it wasnt the goal was to fix the german tanks in place to allow a us breakout

@johndawes9337

2 ай бұрын

Omar Bradley: ’While Collins was hoisting his VII Corps flag over Cherbourg, Montgomery was spending his reputation in a bitter siege against the old university city of Caen. For three weeks he had rammed his troops against those panzer divisions he had deliberately drawn towards that city as part of our Allied strategy of diversion in the Normandy Campaign. Although Caen contained an important road junction that Montgomery would eventually need, for the moment the capture of that city was only incidental to his mission. For Monty's primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout. In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents however had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the Germans by diverting him toward Caen from Cotentin, we would also have given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort._ While this diversion of Monty's was brilliantly achieved, he nevertheless left himself open to criticism by overemphasizing the importance of his thrust toward Caen. Had he limited himself simply to the containment without making Caen a symbol of it, he would have been credited with success instead of being charged, as he was, with failure. For Monty’s success should have been measured in the Panzer divisions the enemy rushes against him whilst Collins sped on towards Cherbourg. Instead, the Allied newspaper readers clamoured for a place named Caen which Monty had once promised but failed to win for them. The containment mission that had been assigned Monty in the OVERLORD plan was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishments of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. For another four weeks it fell to the British to pin down superior enemy forces in that sector while we manoeuvred into position for the US breakout. With the Allied World crying for blitzkrieg the first week after we landed, the British endured their passive role with patience and forebearing.“ -The American LIFE Magazine 1951.ty John Peate

Turning an obvious and Hummiliaiting defeat into a strategic victory,is one of the most Disgusting and Despicabale things someone can do concerning the hundreds of young men who died following orders, specialy from very incompetent High Ranking Officers. No Respect at all for those who paid the ultimate price just because the Ego of one useless Man.

@thehistoryexplorer

22 күн бұрын

I’m not sure I follow? You do realise the British were victorious and knocked out large swathes of the German armour, fixing it in the east to allow a breakout in the west.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

22 күн бұрын

Numerous Military Historians such as John Buckley, Ian Daglish, Simon Trew, Stephen Badsey and Christopher Dunphie all agree that Operation Goodwood was a successful effort to draw German reserves, particularly armour, onto the 21st Army group to support Operation Cobra.

@nickdanger3802

11 күн бұрын

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- "'Goodwood' may not have been the breakout so desperately wanted, but it kept the bulk of the German forces in that sector. So when US forces launched Operation 'Cobra' on 25 July they faced only eleven weak divisions with limited fighting power. 'Cobra' broke the front open southwards from Saint-Lô, and American forces began a headlong advance westwards into Brittany and eastwards towards the Seine. The Germans had kept Allied forces bottled up for six weeks. But in so doing they had reduced themselves to remnants, devoid of reserves and unable to withstand the breakout when it came." IWM Tactics and the Cost of Victory in Normandy page

So why didn’t the Allies use close air support in the offensive like the German Blitz offense?

@thehistoryexplorer

3 ай бұрын

It all comes down to coordination and communication at the time. The allies relied on a mass of bombers to prepare the battlefield and artillery for close support, but its effectiveness can be questioned

It was a failed ,poor recon ??

@thehistoryexplorer

7 ай бұрын

Certainly a contributing factor

They did not bomb the troop positions. They killed several thousand French civilians in Caen. Bomber Harris hated tactical bombing and this may have had some influence with the British bombers.

Hey,there's little Monty.

@thehistoryexplorer

9 ай бұрын

Did you enjoy the video?

its Monty's excuse for a victory sadly a complete flop, though it helped the USA break through.

@thehistoryexplorer

24 күн бұрын

Come on there is far more to it than that.

I take issue with the aerial bombardment being ineffective, the Germans certainly didn’t see it that way and were extremely concerned that a similar barrage would precede future allied operations. A lot of the German heavy units were too far forward and caught in this barrage resulting in their being removed as an effective fighting force.

@thehistoryexplorer

3 ай бұрын

I understand your point, but the suppressive effect of a pre H aerial bombardment is suggested to be ineffective by the many AARs conducted by the British. This isn’t my assessment

Largest Tank Battle X Largest tank Failure O

@thehistoryexplorer

4 ай бұрын

Was it a failure? It committed masses of German armour to be destroyed in the coming days and weeks where as the allied armour was mostly recovered and on the road again in the same time frame. It enabled the US breakout near St Lo during operation COBRA

@Hamzeeeeee7

4 ай бұрын

@thehistoryexplorer Montgomery puts 3 Armored Divisions into 3km, which causes heavy traffic jams. For the Qrmored Divisions, traffic jams are unwelcomed and most of the troops of Germany survived the bombing. Which made those 3 Armored Div which 1,100 of the tank's were for the allied troops literally got humiliated and lost 4,000~5,000 men and 300~500 tanks while Germany lost 1,000~2,000 men and also 70~100 Panzers. If it was a feint plan with Operation Cobra. They could went to a smaller offense which could have caused lower casualty but what we can know about Montgomery and how he acted, there is only one answer that he wanted victory for himself and also, Montgomery wasn't that good with George Patton. Every time they meet, Eisenhower and Oma bradley had to mediate those two.

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-

4 ай бұрын

@@Hamzeeeeee7 They did not lose 500 tanks the Allies lost around 150-200 tanks with the rest being repaired in 24 hours, and btw the Germans actually lost 7,000 men not 2,000.

The Tommie Cooker (Sherman Tank ) was an Infantry tank....it was not built for tank on tank warfare....they did not carry anti tank guns.....this goes for Brits and American Sherman tanks......Even when they started arming the Sherman with the High Velocity 76 mm anti tank gun..they were still not up to par with the Germans........The American and British Tankers that were sent into battle with the Sherman...knew they were committing suicide fighting German Tanks and yet they still did it ....which says a lot........The allied commanders knew they were sending these men to their deaths also......They should have been Court Marshaled after the war......

@eze8970

Жыл бұрын

That's not the full story though. When the Sherman was introduced in 1942, it was seen as comparable/better to the German tanks (although the new long barrelled Pzr IV 75mm had a better anti tank gun), & the Allies were still on the defensive. After El Alamein, this changed. Proposed Allied heavy tanks were either adopted (Churchill) or requested, but put back for further development (T1/Pershing). It was more difficult for the Allies to design & produce tanks as they didn't have a controlled economy like Germany, & didn't yet see the need. Allied private contractors were waiting on specifications from the UK/USA War Depts, which kept changing their minds. The Pzr III or IV was still the Germans most common tank, & the Soviets didn't really share the details of the Tiger. The Sherman was still seen as 'adequate' in 1944, & massive numbers seen to be the key. The Pzr IV, was known as the 'tin can' by it's crews due to the lack of armour, it also caught fire, so it wasn't just the Allies who complained. Could the Allies have put out heavier tanks earlier - 'yes', but the Navy & Airforce took resource & skills priority. In the the UK, tank design for years had been a low priority. Shermans in US doctrine weren't supposed to fight German tanks anyway, that was the tank destroyers job. European infrastructure wasn't ready for heavier tanks either, the Germans had huge issues getting their tanks to the battlefields, & then maintaining or recovering these overcomplicated beasts. Due to their numbers, the Shermans in reality were able to flank & take out their German opponents, winning the attrition war. What also must be remembered, is how many Allied infantry lives were saved due to the massive numbers of Shermans. German infantry complained bitterly that the Shermans were everywhere, providing Allied infantry with direct support (which was it's main job) from it's main gun & mgs. Having a lower velocity gun, it's barrel lasted far longer than the German high velocity types. Shells were smaller, so more ammo could be carried to. It was far more suited to taking out bunkers, houses, strongpoints etc that the Allies had to do on the offensive. The Sherman Fireflys & those with 76mm guns, especially with later ammunition were able to take out most German tanks from the front. In the Pacific, the Sherman was crucial in helping the Infantry/Marines clear bunkers. So, while the Allies could have fielded a 'heavier' tank with a 'better' anti tank gun earlier, it may well have been underdeveloped, unreliable, a logistical problem, & reduce Sherman production - WHILST STILL BEING PENETRATED BY GERMAN ANTI TANK GUNS. The heavily armoured British Churchill, whilst it gave it's crew more protection (& was less likely to catch fire), wasn't invulnerable. The British had their AT/Tortoise assault tanks in design, but these had their own issues. I'm not taking anything away from the bravery of the Allied tankers, or denying that 'penny pinching' got in the way of UK/US tank design (something the Germans didn't have to worry about), or that Allied Generals didn't think some form of higher velocity guns weren't necessary early enough, but there will always be compromises in war.

@stevekay5486

10 ай бұрын

@@eze8970 My father said the 17 pounder shermans levelled the playing field to some extent.

@eze8970

10 ай бұрын

@@stevekay5486 Correct, there just weren't enough of them by the time of D-Day.

@senseofthecommonman

Ай бұрын

Excellent summary

An excellent video. Using the aerial photos really helps to explain the battle. I have been to the battlefield and as you noted, the Anglo-Canadian forces were fighting uphill and under constant observation. Definitely, the Germans had well prepared, well thought out defensive positions and the SS forces knew the area well. Von Luck's 88s had a perfectly prepared shooting gallery. The Germans also realized that Caen was a lot closer to Germany than St. Lo. and knew the importance of holding the left flank of the invasion beaches. I think Monty really wanted to break out onto the Falaise Plain and it had potential for future airfield construction. If he had slugged it out for one more day, the German defences might have collapsed. I understand that the operation ended with torrential rains turning the battlefield into a quagmire and was a big factor in continuing the battle. The bridges also constituted a major bottleneck. I believe along with Ike that Goodwood was a total failure.

@thehistoryexplorer

10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment.