Battle of the Bulge: Volksgrenadier Report

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

All our books are %15 off until Dec 25 including yours www.lulu.com/spotlight/mhg/ Get Sturmzug here: sturmzug.com

[@anon2034]

A request for video: The requirement for an "General Assault Badge" and "Tank Badge" are to have participated in an "assault or counter attack"? What constitutes an "assault"? And on what level - personal, squad, platoon, company, etc...? How were the counted?"

[@chrisbeer5685]

Last time I was this early, Germany was unexpectedly attacking through the Adrennes.

[@chefboyardee2223]

Which one, the first time, second time or third time,?

[@macgonzo]

​@@chefboyardee2223 Yes.

[@herrcobblermachen]

gimme 5 bees for a quarter, they'd say

[@coldalex420]

*Ardennes

[@xanderunderwoods3363]

Ha! Nice

[@neroenerius9530]

My Great-Grandfather was in the 326. Volksgrenadierdivision. He was wounded on the 16th of December right at the beginning of the attack. He lost his arm due to a shrapnel of a artilleryshell or a handgrenade.

[@abyssaldision8272]

😬

[@enovos3138]

Did he leave writings? Or have more stories?

[@massengineer7582]

There are slightly more grains of sand on the beach than Military History Visualized's collection of icons.

[@b2tall239]

I remember reading a comment from a Panzergrenadier who fought in the battle. He said "Anyone who says the Americans didn't fight well was obviously not in my sector", or words to that effect. Thanks. Excellent video, as always.

[@czwarty7878]

Most opinions of Americans not fighting well came from early fights in North Africa, Italy, and early Normandy battles. However, by the end of 1944, after experiences on all these fronts, Americans were whole other fighting force, they were experienced and well trained, with seasoned veterans in their ranks just like the Germans had. US veterans in their memories were often complaining about situation in late 1944, when their units were seemingly full of greenhorn replacements - but the experience of veterans brought average fighting potential of American units to a high level, enough to by then match or even outmatch their German counterparts

[@KuK137]

@@czwarty7878 LOLno. They were still much worse than the germans (unless said unit was virtually destroyed by red army and had mostly kids or elderly troops). The reason why they fought better was their virtually unlimited supply of ammo compared to the germans, it doesn't matter if your troops are individually better if enemy can fire 10 to 50 artillery shells per 1 you were issued, because then your troops will die before making contact. It's telling US infantry did kill way below average number of enemy troops, it was planes and artillery that made up for it...

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@KuK137 Apparently you weren't in that guy's sector.

[@ThorsDecree]

​@@KuK137if it just comes down to logistics then why has Russia spent over 1,000 days unsuccessfully trying to do what they expected they would do in 72 hours?

[@stripeytawney822]

@@KuK137 lol no yourself. Why would you 'think' lol is an appropriate comment here? Death funny? Your hero 'thought' the bulge would allow his hand picked tankers a chance at American cooks and mechanics, surely your video game research has unveiled that comment. Tell us laugher, how did those uber-tankers do against those cooks and wrenches? Hmmmmm? Lol-ing in English not German is your clue.

[@WilltheNinja]

If the sources exist i think it would be interesting to see the German opinions/analysis of early vs late war Allied units, especially a British unit on offence in North Africa vs a British unit on the offensive in 1944/45

[@lucas82]

That would be very interesting indeed. The British had such a mixed record in WW2. Sometimes they fought like lions, and other times they would fold like a wet piece of paper.

[@jaredkronk4614]

Early war it was very low opinion of the British for good reason. They were being pushed back despite every advantage on paper.

[@lucas82]

@@jaredkronk4614 I suppose that's true for the army at least, the Royal Navy was doing a lot better even though they suffered humiliating losses as well with the losses of large ships like Ark Royal, Hood, Repulse and the Prince of Wales.

[@nickbell4984]

​@@lucas82The British Army was weak in the beginning of the war because they didn't think they would be fighting the war by themselves. The Royal Navy and Air force were consistently strong. Once the British Army started getting into gear, it got into gear. Where they were at the beginning of the war was because the interwar governments were scared of the war so didn't want to fear monger everyone else by molbilising, and if they went to war then they would just use French troops to fight the land war while the Royal Navy would destroy whatever Navy the enemy had and starve them, like they did in ww1. However, the French army hadn't developed a whole lot (technology wise) since WW1 and the British army was full of incompetent leaders. After 1941, the army's performance greatly improved: defence of the Suez canal, forcing axis out of Africa, invasion of Italy, and the Burma campaign (although this was largely done by the British Indian Army).

[@markflacy7099]

If you have not seen it, you might find the book "Victory Was Beyond Their Grasp: With the 272nd Volks-Grenadier Division from the Huertgen Forest to the Heart of the Reich" an interesting read.

[@Wien1938]

That's an excellent study.

[@Ekatjam]

My grandfather who had been in Russia since the first week of the invasion and eventually became a member of the 548th Volksgrenadier division. He was MIA in Konigsberg, East Prussia in April 1945 when the unit was wiped out. The unit consisted of veterans as well as Sea Cadets from the Kreigsmarine.

[@diggman88]

I never knew the US army could detect enemy radios in 1945. Using radios become really hard when they attract 155mm shells to your HQs and you don't have fuel to keep moving.

[@YuriXEstelle]

Radio Direction Finding was also used in the Atlantic. It was used to find U-Boats who radiod in when they found convoys.

[@2adamast]

Apparently the Germans only became aware of the presence of British and US next generation radio direction equipment (seconds instead of minutes) by 1943

[@ДушманКакдела]

It is easier to detect emissions than it is to produce them.

[@TheHaighus]

Radio triangulation was even a thing in WWI 20 years prior.

[@ДушманКакдела]

@TheHaighus yes as soon as you are able to emit radiation/radio you need to also have a way to recieve them I.E. detect. That necessitates a basic level of detection and triangulation. So it's always been an aspect of this technology.

[@jrd33]

Very well presented and useful information, thank you. It conveys well the problems the Germans faced in late 1944 compared with the earlier stages of the war.

[@craigbenz4835]

The lack of radios surprised me, because I was thinking back to your comparison of German v Soviet tanks where the German radios were superior.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

That was in 1941 and also the Soviet Union is quite different in terms of radios to the United States. One major issue with German radios was according to Zaloga that they had a problem producing batteries in mass.

[@rikterandersson3568]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I find there is a lot of these aspects where the narrative is always in favor of germany as the ''highlights'' of the german army is always the high watermark for the entire army. Even if it was only during a short time or in a specific location. Meanwhile the other combatants have their weakest moments as setting their watermark. A recurring theme is how when German equipment or manpower/''stuff''' is in larger quantity than their enemies (like radios in 1941 or manpower advantage at start of Barbarossa) then it is either the highlight that remains (even if discussing later years) or downplayed/not mentioned. A large part of the excitement in popular culture around German might is the prevailing idea of an underdog and underappreciated genius (like saying they have state of the arms tanks while glossing over production rates and maintenance). When you look under the hood one is continuously surprised over the lack of so many things, even basic things, and often earlier in the war than one thinks. It is true that the traditions of the Prussian staff work and espirit d'corps elevated rank and file as well as commanders to do much with little (even extraordinary much with barely anything at times), but it is often forgotten with which complacency for the strategic questions this brought with it. Some later strategic plans being pitifully planned or unrealistic. The long running point here is that I wouldn't be surprised if many Germans in 1944 would have been surprised by the lack of radios too. Including those with access to those numbers, who probably would then downplay it ''we don't need all this stuff the enemy has'' despite utilizing it so much earlier. During Napoleonic times there were many commanders who became paralyzed by napoleon due to myth only. Similarly I am in awe how the German army myths (be them true or not) continue to hold our attention and still paralyze us at times, to this day. How they conquered the international narrative and have held on to it even after their total defeat is something I would love to see a video about.

[@EpicRenegade777]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized was this due to things like lack of copper?

[@czwarty7878]

Those are two different things. The note about radios in video refers to infantry-carried radio sets, which were heavy and large as long range was needed for observer to report back to battery. While for tanks the size didn't matter as much, not to mention the range of radio communiction required would be shorter One of problems for Volksgrenadiers here would probably be exactly lack of observer vehicles, including tanks. Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions had halftracks and observer tanks (Beobachtungspanzer), which had radio on board and could safely direct the fire. But infantry divisions had to rely on soldiers carrying the sets

[@danielsteger8456]

@@rikterandersson3568 what "international narrative"? if you watch propaganda and believe those things then its your fault for being too gullible. everybody's notion of "narrative" is different and if you watch history to concern yourself with completely subjective matters like "excitement in popular culture" then you are immature. grow up

[@MoF247]

Thank you for this insightful video. My great-uncle was only 17 when he fell on the 24th of December 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge. According to his death certificate he was a Grenadier but afaik no specific division is mentioned. He must've been part of the Seventh Army though, as he fell on that southern flank you highlighted at 0:55. It was in Grosbous (Luxembourg), which would roughly be between Neufchâteau and Trier on that map. What a tremendous waste of young lives this war was.

[@pastajensen]

This was really interesting, thank you.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MAAAAAAAAAA123]

This was the Echternach sector. The 12th Infantry Regiment defending Echternach in this sector had a reasonable frontline and an attached independent Tank battalion (70th), and further backed up by several Task Forces loaned from Combat Command A, 9th Armored Division.

[@alexandershorse9021]

Really interesting, you could say the US forces were more “modern” than the German, with material advantages at every level, which must have been very demoralising for the grenadiers.

[@dsan8742]

What is absolutely insane, is that in spite of literally every facet of US strategic materiale and organization being superior in number and frequently even superior in quality (artillery, radio communications, availability and quality of tanks, individual and divisional level cohesion etc.) the Germans STILL inflicted more than 1:1 casualties favourably, now this is really bad strategically but tactically that brilliance cannot be ignored

[@2adamast]

@@dsan8742 Being on the defensive STILL helps a lot. And in this case the Germans start with an insane numerical superiority, a 2-4 :1 advantage.

[@benjaminlathem2745]

Yeah Merica.

[@dsan8742]

@@2adamast Being on the defensive with such massive materiale advantage should be insanely favourable to the US, additionally from what I’m reading it was 2:1. And after 1 week of fighting the Americans had 100k more men. For essentially only 1 week out of the month the Germans had the numbers. That’s crazy they still traded 1:1 after that point

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The only real advantage the US forces had was crushing numerical advantage, safe supply lines, number of artillery tubes and access to ammo, as well as air superiority. Many German weapons were superior, and most were at least comparable. German tactical doctrine was also superior, which shows in the overall casualty ratios, even as late as BoB, which were 1,5: 1 in German favor.

[@conormacneill8284]

Someone needs to make a video/book on the state of C3 for the various armies throughout WW2

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

Low point-France 1940.

[@Wien1938]

In other words, Rundstedt's reported remark in the summer ("Make peace, you fools!") was the correct appreciation, though in terms of anything other than unconditional surrender, about three years late.

One more nail in the coffing of the old "the germans had better technology" myth :) The Allies had not only more, but also better stuff in many areas. Great Video

[@causewaykayak]

Tip Top bit of work. Thanks for bringing your research to us.

[@marcusott2973]

My grandfather served in the ID44, from the 1st day to the last of the war. Including all the mess in between, wounded twice and fathered 2 children in that time.

[@nco_gets_it]

US command philosophy was different. The Germans ideally practiced auftragstaktik, but in reality, the Army or Corps commander were too involved in the actual tactical fight, and not nearly engaged enough in the logistics arena. Of course, the Germans really had no logistics doctrine--which is also a major problem for all German operations after France. A great example of US Army agility and quickness is seen in the wet gap crossings just prior to the push to the Rhine.

[@cerbuscankerous3714]

Sounds like the Volksgrenadier were defence oriented, less mobile with an emphasis on heavy weapons which makes sense as they take longer to deploy in action if on the move? Given the year in which their ORBAT was laid down that does make sense and avoids asking the Heer to change into something obviously defence focused.

[@mathiasbartl903]

There was also a German para division in one of the sectors.

[@Wien1938]

No, the VG divisions were intended to have more close range firepower, so be more useful for the attack. They were also supposed to be both better motivated (political instruction) and better trained but the collapsing fronts meant the units were often committed only semi-trained at best. Douglas Nash has an excellent study of one of these units and opens with what the VG divisions were intended to achieve.

[@cerbuscankerous3714]

@Wien1938 that does not marry up with the described weapons, predominantly heavy machine guns and heavy artillery, reduced engineer and reconaisence elements.

[@czwarty7878]

@@cerbuscankerous3714 You're making wrong assumptions here. Heavy weapons are just as important in attack as in defense. Infantry guns for example were intended to be used as primarily offensive weapons. The "time to deploy" being a problem is a type of video game concepts. In real life battles such thing as deploying HMG or infantry gun or mortar is not slow at all since you use them from long range, and you have to direct and coordinate their fire anyway, which probably takes longer than redeploying. If you're interested, Bundeswehr has videos depicting use of MG3 on heavy Lafette on the offense, as well as mortars. If you watch these videos you'll see the deployment is very rapid and not any slower than a normal infantry squad relocating

[@Wien1938]

@cerbuscankerous3714 1. The title "Volks" was intended to be a similar status title to that of Guards. 2. Emphasis was placed on political indoctrination to produce "National Socialist soldiers". 3. The StG 44 was issued more widely in the VGD. Each infantry company was to have two MP platoons, each with 26 StG 44s issued, each man issued with 210 rounds. Each man issued with an StG 44 had 20x the firepower of one issued with a 98k. 4. More infantry support weapons were issued compared with ordinary infantry divisions. 5. The training emphasis remained on the attack and ideologically they were supposed to emphasis "will" in fighting, to overcome the enemy by sheer willpower. 6. The manpower pool was bent towards filling these divisions, not the old infantry divisions, which implies more than just a defensive purpose. 7. They were used in offensive roles (Dec 1944 for example). Just because the divisions through lack of heavy equipment, radios (one per battalion!) and lack of proper training were poorly suited (objectively) to offensive roles, does not mean that they were not *intended* for such. All German divisions above the role of Static were intended to be able to attack in a serious manner. See "Victory was Beyond their Grasp" by Douglas E. Nash, "With the 272nd Volks-Grenadier Division from the Hürtgen Forest to the Heart of the Reich". Chapter 2.

[@HvH909]

Very well presented and prepared research on this topic. Thanks for all your hard work.

[@unknown0soldier]

0:14 that was brutal xD

[@wheezy1587]

Who do you think he was referencing?

[@LucasCarvalho-wp4vx]

Nice presentation, very interesting.

[@196cupcake]

It's a good example of how "shape the battle field" works.

[@MAAAAAAAAAA123]

16:15 odd conclusion of Dr Neitzell when comparing to the east. The German ardennes and alsace offensives failed but accomplished a-lot more than the eastern offensives in this time frame, Spring Awakening and all except one of the Konrad offensives failed to even generate an operation breakthrough.

[@RustyShackleford]

Thank you for this video.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

3:35 The only difference between the light and heavy MGs were the additon of the Trimount, were these so rare? I thought those were normal equipment?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yes, the Lafette cost more than the gun.

[@audiosurfarchive]

​@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedabsolute state of Wehrmact war economic conditions

[@gratefulguy4130]

It was a very complex mount. Very advanced though.

[@gratefulguy4130]

​@@audiosurfarchive It was still cheaper and much more effective than having a separate production line to use a Maxim variant as the heavy MG like every other nation.

[@audiosurfarchive]

@@gratefulguy4130 More than fair point, but I'm just trying to emphasize maybe their choice in weapon mounts, and the costs therein, wasn't the problem.

[@doncarlton4858]

This is a very interesting take considering that senior German Army generals in WW2 had nothing but contempt for the American Army and the abilities of the US soldier. Perhaps compensation for their incompetence that led to the German defeat?

[@ahmedvawda1282]

They looked at the carefree young Americans and made this incorrect conclusion.

[@stripeytawney822]

Don't you need to include time in this? EARLY in the war German brass held that opinion. Not so much later.

[@Warmaker01]

@@stripeytawney822 Yes. The US Army that went into and got mauled at Kasserine Pass in February 1943 is not the same US Army that is fighting in the Ardennes in December 1944. While the US Army had already seen plenty of combat action by 1943, it was all in the Pacific. There had been no major formations engaged in combat with the Western Axis forces until Kasserine Pass. Senior US Army leaders knew it was going to be messy but it was necessary to "blood" the army and have lessons learned. By the time we get to December 1944 the US Army in European and the Mediterranean Theaters had seen enough combat action. So we see in this video the German assessments of US troops is going to be far different from the abysmal performance they showed at Kasserine Pass.

[@stripeytawney822]

@@Warmaker01 yup, what warmaker said!

[@warsyn3838]

@@Warmaker01 They also only really got clobbered on day 1 at Kasserine Pass, in the days that followed, US units did just fine, even though they were very green.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

4:40 wasnt the LeIG 37 basically the barrle of the le.i.G 18 with different system in the mount of the 37mm pak? So it isnt really a AT gun, tho it did have HEAT rounds with 115mm penetration.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

its the barrel and breech of the le.i.G 42, the canceled higher velocity le.i.G 18 replacement (although still low velocity, 280m/s for HE vs the 210m/s for the IG18 and 395m/s for the HEAT vs the once again 210m/s for the IG18) due to longer barrel (L22 vs L11.2) and in the case of HEAT a higher pressure charge. the main reason for the improved velocity was to be a better anti-tank weapon as it was desired to be a duel purpose weapon. the breech is also different, allowing for higher rate of fire making it more effective in general. pak37 mounts were available in large enough numbers that making them was deemed better than the purpose built mounts of the orginal IG42 design.

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

The "historian in its natural habitat" always get me. You look so handsome, Mr. Kast.

[@unknown0soldier]

So regarding the differences it was like this: - Volks division: hey can I copy your homework? - Infanterie division: yeah, jusy change it a little bit so nobody finds out

[@Lord_winterfell]

luv this channel !!!!!!!!!

[@WhatHoSnorkers]

Excellent work.

[@davidbrennan660]

Fascinating.. great video..

[@mattclements1348]

awesome ty, love his accent

[@looinrims]

“Boy Tom, Jerry seems to be moving around a lot over there”

[@neilwilson5785]

The Piper Cub was a key recon aeroplane for the US forces. 20,000 were built. Its counterpart in the German forces was the Fiesler Storch.

[@CurtisWebb-en5kh]

Thank you from California.

[@johnlansing2902]

I had the honor of speaking with WW2 European theater Veterans . Those involved in the battle of the bulge said “ fighting the Germans was a kinda job …. Till the Malmedy massacre then it was a crusade and we were not gonna stop . Great men !

[@bobyouel7674]

great stuff

[@thomasdoubting]

Tried to read up on and understand the replacement army/SS/volksgrenadier *goulash* ca 15 years ago And I sill get a headache just hearing about it all! 🤢

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yeah, I think I cut a page of content.

[@GlenCychosz]

Thank you.

[@professorkatze1123]

One whole Division just got 33 light and 9 heavy artillery pieces? that seems like not that much for such a big formation with thousands of men.

[@majorproblem8796]

The typical American Division had 36 105mm Howitzers and 12 155mm Howitzers in four battalions. Not counting lighter infantry guns attached at the regimental level. That’s enough for 1 light howitzer to back up 1 Rifle/Weapons Company each

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Originally, it was 36 and 12 as well. There was one light howitzer in the training battalion as well.

[@88porpoise]

That does seems small to me. Didn't a British infantry division have 72 25-pdrs? One field regiment of 24 per infantry Brigade. Although all medium and heavy guns were at the corps or Army level. I guess that latter part is also likely part of it, corps and divisional assets could make a big difference to what was available to a division even if not part of it.

[@mathiasbartl903]

By that time there were also less infantry battalions, and because German units would be in the field longer without reinforcement that would increase the artillery to infantry ration, but then there was also the issue of ammunition. And during the Ardennes offensive there were additional artillery and rocket artillery units attached.

[@BlitkriegsAndCoffee]

@@88porpoise The throw weight of the 25 pounder just wasn't up to par of the heavier 105mm guns the Americans and Germans we're fielding. Nevermind the 155mm varieties. The 25 Pounder fit the British doctrine well, (volume of fire and speed of response) but they had to pack a ton of them into a Division to match the output of the 36 / 12 setup used by the Americans and Germans.

[@mavm7473]

A real historian in the wild , get your binos up and admire

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting.

[@michaelthayer5351]

Combined Arms and the Military-Industrial Complex are important kids.

[@enovos3138]

I'm gonna be thinking about this video while playing as the oberkommando west in company of heroes 2

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Even though they had a program to make radios,the germans still didn't have enough.Really shows who had the better economic system.

[@satyasailohithvootla4209]

Could you do a video on the effectiveness and participation of Rail Road guns?

[@tzeentchnianexaltedsorcero2041]

Sir, is there any report made by the 18th volksgrenadier division? I wonder what make this particular volksgren. division more successful?

[@theodorechill]

Could someone tell me what a Fusilier entailed exactly? Online it is a bit confusing.

[@George_M_]

Militaries that waste time expecting their enemy to be incompetent are often in for a shock. Both sides in the Korean war in real time channel are displaying that.

[@str34mln3r]

How was the state of staple supplies on the Western Front? I guess same as the Eastern Front: a lack of artillery ammunition, a lack of food, but you don't mention it, so I am wondering.

[@samuelpaquette4974]

How is a Füsilier company different from other infantry companies?

[@SleepySoviet]

They’re reconnaissance units

[@pzakp311]

Not too different at all, they were made somehow a bit more mobile by issuing bicycles to them. When it comes to weapons they were issued the same number of light MGs and SMG as a standard rifle company. The Füsilier battalions role was to provide some reconnaissance capabilities for the division and to serve as divisional reserve or strike unit.

[@czwarty7878]

They were supposed to carry out reconnaissance-by-force. In numbers and weapons they were normal infantry squad. They would be formed by taking best soldiers from infantry, placing them on bicycles for quick relocation, and having them carry out recon tasks, including recon-by-force

[@fazole]

This is fascinating, but from my readings it seems the performance of various units was...variable. Lyle Bouck's famous report showed that the Germans attacking him were obviously inexperienced and poorly trained. Their repeated frontal attacks uphill were ordered by a Luftwaffe ofiicer, drafted into the infantry. However, inexperienced American units ran from fire many times. Lt. George Wilson recounts this. US casualties in the Hürtgenwald resulted in many ad hoc units being formed with veterans of that battle and replacements which undoubtedly helped with "tenacity". Yet, Wilson reported that his replacements in the Bulge were barely able to operate their rifles due to their hurried training. Finally, the US had the best radio communicarion of any army. It had a much shorter chain of command than the Germans, who were amazed a lowly lieutenant could call in an artillery strike.

[@tomhenry897]

Believe the replacements came from rear units that were declared unneeded So got clerks, cooks , supply tossed into the front as infantry

[@Penfold-8521]

Perspective from the normal grunt german soldier......It was snowing, it was arse cold and I wasn't really sure what was going on. Perspective from the normal grunt american soldier...it was snowing, it was arse cold and I wasn't really sure what was going on.

[@rpick7546]

'For those who don't read German, let alone with the proper accent.' FIFY.

[@outofturn331]

What do you think of the 25 pounders?

[@jamesevans886]

This makes an interesting comparison to a US Army Intelligence report on the Volks Grenadier that I read a few years ago. Firstly, it noted a breakdown in trust between the SS and the army. They believed this was an attempt by the SS to double dip on the man pool and produce an army their could build an army the SS could trust. When compared to the regular German Army members of the Volks Grenadier, they were of a higher IQ. I'm not sure why the US Army Intelligence became increasingly transfixed on IQ. However, what comes out of your video and the US report is one of mutual respect.

[@MisterApol]

Were the Volksgrenadiers the units officered by ex-Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Plenty of Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel were used in 1944/45 in the Heer divisions, but I am not sure about how the officer ratio was. The original goal for the Volksgren was to give them young and distinguished (German Cross, Knight' Cross) officer, but that could not be really achieved.

[@causewaykayak]

My father (British) commented on the quality of german training across the board. He specifically mentions the naval personnel who were brought into the land battles from the Rhine northwards towards the Baltic. Tough Nuts to crack. Even their cooks could put up a stiff defence. He explicitly commends the NCO ranks for their ability to prevent disintegration under pressure and their ability to form cohesive squads from survivor remnants. I think this is worth mentioning. Lions led by Donkeys was not just a British WW1 thing.

[@michaely6665]

I don't think the morale issue is brought up enough by any analyses of 1945 battle of bulge. It was clear the chances of German forces pushing allies back into the sea were close to nil by 1945.

[@lesseregyptianjabowa2048]

Please make a video on Japanese ww2 tactics

[@wolski7447]

Are you sure about the Ig 37? From what I've read they've only used the carriages of old antitank guns and barrels of purposely designed infantry guns.

[@SabreWolferos]

“ volksgrenadiers are ready, for what it’s worth”

[@k2two57]

Was the US infantry in the report 101st Airborne? If so, another case of exception making the rules

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

No, completely different area.

[@k2two57]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized So appreciate your throughness. A real historian I say

[@CGM_68]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The furious forth (Infantry Division) begun the battle of the Bulge with its rifle companies 1,600 men short of "T/O" strength, and it finished the battle still more depleted in strength, and under-equipped. Many men had been lost in the fierce fights in the snow, and trench foot again dragged other men down. 44th US Infantry Division meanwhile was much further south. Regrouping after the liberation of Strasbourg, the division returned to the attack, taking Ratzwiller and entering the Ensemble de Bitche in the Maginot Line. On 14 December, regiments of the 44th Division took part in assaulting major Maginot line fortifications. The division's 71st and 324th Infantry Regiments assaulted Fort Simserhof and nearby Hottviller. After six days of fighting, the unit captured Simershof on 20 December. Displacing to defensive positions east of Sarreguemines, 21-23 December, the 44th threw back three attempted crossings by the enemy of the Blies River. I mention this, since your graphics read 44 and not 4th as stated in the intro. Ah, the penny has dropped, it was not clear to me the report on the 44th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht).

[@CGM_68]

@@k2two57 44th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) were on Lake Balaton in Hungary, forward of Nagykanizsa, one of the last sources of oil available to Germany. By the first week in December the 44th was seen as having only limited defensive capabilities, and its fighting spirit was strongly diminished, but the now static front remained quiet for several weeks allowing the 44th division to rebuild its strength and absorb replacements.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@CGM_68 I am talking about the "Infantry Division 44" pattern/layout (the 44 stands for 1944) not the 44th Infantry Division.

[@swatsaw6]

Panzer shrek - when shrek was wearing a helmet in the first movie

[@vladimpaler3498]

You have to wonder if they see a spotter plane, get painted with color smoke and ask to vacate the area.

[@RonJohn63]

Electronic warfare 80 years ago!

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Electronic warfare has been a thing since the invention of the field telephone and radio.

[@gamedude412]

Weren’t the volk unit meant to be more a better unit to the fortress unit. Able to attack and hold gains to free up the “better” units.

[@FieldMarshalFeels]

As the old saying goes, "The west is the best."

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Takeaway lesson: Americans in 1944 were better equiped with very modern equipment, better coordinated and better trained than their Soviet counterparts. Also they didn't lack strenght or determination as is often said. So basically an enemy without major weaknesses. Must have been horrific to attack against them.

[@Wien1938]

Yes, the fights were extremely bloody, often to both sides. 272 VG was nearly wiped out in terms of combat manpower while the American units took heavy losses in back and forth fighting.

[@VainerCactus0]

So it was a skill issue?

[@eduardoanzolch6078]

I know i played COH 1 (company of Heroes 1) Volksgrenadier 1944 in Normandy are inexperienced units akin to Armed Populace mostly ineffective. Their sole use is to crew Weapons.

[@SleepySoviet]

The coh1 volks are more like volksstrum than volksgrens. Coh 2’s portrayal is more accurate

[@DRGEngineer]

i feel like their portrayal in CoH1 is inaccurate, not really the best representation of the volksgrenadier. i prefer their implementation in Gates of Hell Ostfront, their squads are slightly smaller than your average rifle squad but better equipped, carrying more hand grenades, magnetic mines and panzerfausts, on top of costing about the same as a normal rifle squad and having similar stats. they act as a late-war replacement for the normal rifle squad as the additional hand grenades will make them more effective in close quarters and urban combat, and the panzerfausts allow them to disable the heavier late war tanks their standard anti-tank grenades cant leave a scratch on. if the tank isnt completely inert after a panzerfaust warhead or two, you can close in and stick magnetic mines on the engine blocks to finish the job

[@sthrich635]

Yes in both COH Volksgrenadiers were generally low-tier infantry. In CoH2 stat-wise it was only better that the German Osttruppen and Soviet conscripts, somewhat accurate as these men were soldiers before - just not in actual infantry branch, and in term of weaponry they used more on individual automatic (MP40 in first, StG44 in second) rather than a LMG like regular Grenadiers soldiers. In CoH1 they are usually ditched after better Grenadiers are on the field. While in 2nd game, quite historically accurate though Volksgrenadiers were used much more since they were the only standard infantry troops in affordable prices available to OKW faction.

[@mathiasbartl903]

These didn't exist during the battle of Normandy

[@eduardoanzolch6078]

@mathiasbartl903 spot on.

[@clarkeshannon9563]

That shirt now knows what it feels like to be a sausage casing

[@marcocatano554]

You broke so many Wehraboo hearts this time…

[@darkliff11]

where is Bulge, can't find it on map

[@amerigo88]

This is like a Soviet "lessons learned" presentation after facing the Germans in 1941 - 1942. Just change the labels from "US/American" to "German" and from "German" to "Soviet."

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

?

[@davidturner4407]

​@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedMy dad, God Rest His Soul, said the Battle of the Bulge was the worst birthday present he ever got. Soviet Russians in 1941 had not enough radios, poor organization, thanks Stalin, and some ineffective weapons that were later dropped. In overview, the Russians in 1941 and the Germans in 1944 must have had some parallel problems, but the Russians had fuel and space and soldiers who would not let Mother Russia fall to an invader. By 1944 the Germans were a spent force.

[@amerigo88]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized The Soviets in October 1942 put up a slide at 14:52 mark of video: - German Capabilities beyond Material - Soviets had to switch to Defense - Why German Attacks successful - Excellent training of German Soldiers - Infantry protected German tanks - Tanks suppressed Soviet infantry - German Forces had Reserves

[@Lykyk]

Why does his voice sound so... the word used to mean happy but now it describes men with certain tastes from 00:13 to 00:21

[@j.l.stanford1754]

German accents sometimes sound similar to that. Best not to call to much attention to it

[@cerbuscankerous3714]

You just don't get it, in part I suspect because you don't read responses or pay attention to the videoI we are discussing, I haven't started gaming since my last answer , do you always ignore the substance of a response if it conflicts with what you want to say? Ready my previous answer and watch the video again please. There will be various channels that will exlain to you the allocation and use of heavy weapons both in attack and defense and the limitations that entails. Stop thinking about what a weapon can do and look instead at command and control... The heavier the weapon the higher in the formation control sits. Local actions not preplanned simply won't have access o them or the logistics they require. You are the one talking like a gamer., every weapon available all the time to everyone. 😂

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

???

[@shanerooney7288]

The Battle of the Bulge happened when Ukraine entered Kursk...

[@cellperfecto421]

I'm sorry for this in advance... Battle of the Bulge OwO: What's this.

[@berserker4940]

Z

[@89volvowithlazers]

every ww2 war game needs adjustments to late game mechanics ,,,, just sayin