Fall of Giants: What Went Wrong for Germany's Heavy Panzers in the Battle of the Bulge?

Following the Allies' invasion of Normandy and the subsequent expulsion of German forces from France and Belgium in the summer and fall of 1944, Hitler devised an all-out offensive to retake the crucial Belgian port city of Antwerp, a key supply base for the Western Allies. He planned this assault for December, anticipating that the short days and heavy fog would ground Allied air forces.
Kampfgruppe Peiper, the lead armoured fist of the elite 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler in its drive towards the Meuse River.
Initially, Peiper commanded a formidable force of 4,800 men, 117 tanks, and a host of other vehicles and heavy weapons including the terrifying Tiger II or King Tiger heavy tanks.
The King Tigers of Nazi Germany were some of the most feared weapons of their time. With their thick armor and powerful gun, they were designed to dominate the battlefield.
Yet, amidst the snow-covered forests and muddy ground of the Ardennes, these steel behemoths struggled to live up to their fearsome reputation.
After just two weeks of fighting, the Ardennes campaign delivered a death blow to the Panzer force in the West.
From treacherous terrain and brutal weather conditions, to strategic missteps and logistical nightmares, we’ll break down the elements that led to one of Germany's most significant failures in World War II.
#ardennes #battleofthebulge #kingtiger

[@colder5465]

You should remember that the initial predestination of German heavy Panzers were to be spearheads of an offensive. And they were used exactly in that role in the Kursk battle. But after Kursk Germans lost strategic inituative for good and they forced to use them purely in anti-tank role. Although they were very good in any separate combat, they were desperarely very few in number and Russians and Americans simply outmaneuvered them. Tigers were forced to make long marches and repeatedly broke. And another nail in the coffin was ever growing lack of fuel. Suffice to say that Hitler planned Ardennes operation on the assumption that German troops would capture American fuel dumps to continue the offensive. And that didn't materialize at all, kf course.

[@user-wo2iw3kt8o]

@colder5465 what you are saying is true. That's exactly why the Sherman tank was better in combat. . There is a say that is true built like Sherman tank.

[@edmundcharles5278]

You forgot one other big deficiency- lack of German tank recovery vehicles, a deficit which led many battlefield tanks to be destroyed or hastily abandoned.

[@tomassmolen1260]

No fuel, no fuel

[@jorgegallo3261]

Heavy tanks were good for open country like Russia, but impractical for dense landscape and population centers.

[@edmundcharles5278]

…..this the usage of the armored infantry fighting vehicle of which all warring parties were deficient in quantity and quality!

[@billballbuster7186]

The obvious difference between Blitzkrieg and the Bulge was the lack of air power, the most successful element in the Blitzkrieg tactics. No mention of the StuG which were used as a substitute for tanks in the latter half of WW2. But the story of the Tiger 2 is a sad one, it took huge resources to build, but in combat it was a disaster, underpowered with little tactical mobility. Panther was originally a 30 ton tank, it was built with extra armour and weight increased to 45 tons. However the engine and transmission had not been improved to cope with the extra weight. Resulting in very poor reliability which was never addressed. However the offensive terrified US Commanders and British General Montgomery was brought in to command US 1st and 9th Armies for the duration of the battle.

[@touristguy87]

"Blitzkrieg" is not a specific battle. I'm sure that a lot of other specific vehicles were not mentioned, probablyas they were not a major problem. Wasn't too much trouble for the Panzer forces to deal with Sherman tanks. Air support wasn't available for the Allies before the 7th day. As far as the Luftwaffe let's let the wiki for it speak for it.. "With Allied air superiority, the German Army could not operate effectively. The Luftwaffe, equally, found it difficult to provide effective air cover for the German Army. Although German aircraft production peaked in 1944 the Luftwaffe was critically short of pilots and fuel, and lacked experienced combat leaders." Bodenplatte was the 1st of Janurary 1945. That was a week after Christmas Day. The Ardennes offensive of 1944 started on December 16, you might remember from the video that you hopefully watched in entirety, that Piper was already stalled a week after the offensive started. At that point it became a mop-up campaign for the USAAF and Pattons 3rd army driving in from the south. There are only two real factors that between them sufficiently describe this entire effort by Hitler. First, nobody on the General High Command gave this more than a 10% chance of success. It completely hinged on Piper raiding US fuel supplies to find enough fuel to even get his tanks to the Muse and from long experience with the Soviets it was expected that Allied forces would simply retreat, burning these fuel depots and destroying bridges along the roads to the bridges on the Muse, and that is exactly what happened with the exception of the encirclement of Bastonge, in Pipers' rear. Second main factor was the near-absolute Allied air dominance which had already wiped-out German heavy armor in Normandy. So even if the cloud-cover had held, Piper had near-zero chance of accomplishing his objective, and even if he had crossed the Muse, which would have taken him into the British sector around Antwerp, likewise near-zero chance of disrupting operations through Antwerp to the point that the Allies would be willing to negotiate a peace on the Western front, which was the ENTIRE POINT of the Ardennes offensive of 1944. Otherwise it would simply prove to be a massive waste of supposedly-vital, defensively-vital military resources and fuel, essentially opening the Western front to the Allies and hastening the end of the war. Which is exactly what happened. Stug-3 be dammed, Luftwaffe be dammed, SS be dammed, Hitler be dammed. The simple point here is that in 1944 the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe were at a fraction of their effectiveness at the first Ardennes operation in 1940 not to mention that the Allies were far more competent and prepared than they were in 1940. The Nazi forces were no match whatsoever for the Allies in 1944, even with the advantage of a sneak-attack by Piper (one of the best Armored commanders that the Nazis had in 1944), with divisions at a fraction of their normal strength, driving tanks that were not only ill-suited for the terrain but also under-fueled, under-maintained, under-fabricated and operated by under-trained troops with few if any parts...ripping-up new tanks to fix old ones? Even to fight through under-staffed and under-experienced American troops who were deployed there with the expectation that the Nazis wouldn't do what they were actually doing. Be serious. The whole offensive was psychopathically-stupid. At best those forces would have sat there in the lowlands and starved much like they had done at Stalingrad, until the Allies shelled and bombed them to death and put them out of their misery. A clear lesson here: if you insist on fighting a hopeless fight on principle, then do not complain about getting trapped and killed like rats. And if you think that there is honor in being trapped and killed like rats then you will die happy. I can't help but condemn you personally for watching this entire video and knowing at least something about the facts contained within even before watching this video but clearly having the entire lesson of that offensive sail way over your head. Probably not for the first time, either.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@touristguy87 A long winded comment that the battle of the Bulge was doomed to fail. Germany lost the war in 1940 when they failed to knock Britain out of the war before attacking Russia. Then failing to defeat the Rissians.

[@touristguy87]

@@billballbuster7186 ...my God, man, I hope that the NSA doesn't let your brilliance go to waste.

[@t.j.payeur5331]

Nice try, Brit..no one was terrified, and Monty was always a joke. Without the USA you'd be speaking German right now. Deal with it.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@t.j.payeur5331 You are the ones living in a fairy tale of BS, When the Germans attacked at the Bulge it was turning into another Kasserine. Thats why old Monty was put in charge. No other logical reason and a documented FACT.

[@thatonecousin]

KZbin tank experts incoming....

[@LemonHead-sq5ws]

Debating is part of history because actually none of us were there unless you’re hearing it from a vet everything is up to debate…

[@davidferrara1105]

I bet they can even pronounce "Wehrmacht" correctly, unlike your expert here.

[@ozowizo37]

it’s a PANZER

[@your_royal_highness]

Hey trolling is part and parcel of the internet

[@richsmith7200]

Been building armor kits since childhood....which in some ways continues.....based on that, plus countless hours on Red Orchestra, I'm hovering around Field Marshall status. An Irving Rommel if you will.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode about weaponry production by Germany during 1944-1945 ..video clearly explained how bigger size tanks Panzer king were deficiency capabilities vas less size tanks but reliability and balances amongst firepowers, long range, swiftly maneuverability...thank you for sharing

[@simonmcowan6874]

Some of the best collection of war footage, well done for some I've never seen.

[@hermes667]

Germany swapped around units from one front to the other much too often. This was also a burden on their logistics, as well as their often too complicated tanks and the fact that their variety of vehicles was very large. Heavy tanks had quite more problems than today. The infrastructure, bridges, harbour cranes and even normal city streets with sewers was not made for that load. The video gives the Panther a good rating. But the Panther was a 44 ton tank, compared to 25 tons of the Panzer IV and 30 tons of the Sherman. The Panther could make up to 55 km/h, the Panzer IV and Sherman 40 km/h. The Panzer IV canon was a 75mm just a bit shorter than the Panthers. This makes the Panzer IV a better tank than the Sherman, using less ressources. In my opinion It would be far better for the Germans to just upgrade the Panzer IV with sloped front armor and let it spearhead with some Tiger I tanks. Ressources for Panther and Kingtiger could be used better.

[@user-xh3lz9xt4l]

You also forget a Sherman Firefly firing the 17lb Sabot round could put a Panther out of action and the Tiger II could not use most bridges as they would just collapse under their weight

[@edmundcharles5278]

The US war production board should have copied the Firefly turret and to have made it as a standard Sherman production in 1944. Retro-fit the Firefly turret to all existing M4 Sherman tanks!

[@melgross]

@@edmundcharles5278it was a big problem. The turret wasn’t really big enough for the gun. We had a high velocity 76mm gun that was tested for the Sherman that would have been more effective against the Tigers and Panthers. But the tank crews didn’t like it, so it wasn’t used. The low velocity 75 of the Sherman was effective against everything other than the Tigers and Panthers. An odd reason why the shirt barrel was used had to do with shipping. Unlike the Germans, who could transport everything by rail and road, we had to load ours into ships. It turned out that a gun that extended beyond the glasias would limit the number of tanks transported across the Atlantic. It was considered that more tanks were more important than (at the time) hypothetical heavy German tank which wasn’t yet a problem. The UK fitted about a third of the Sherman’s with the 90mm 17 pounder after the tanks debarked.

[@TheDefend3r]

​@@melgrossyou're right on tye money there. In reality, US forces only encountered the Tiger tank less than a dozen times over the entire war. The majority of targets engaged by US tankers were targets that could be defeated handily with the 75mm. The 76mm was available and was being implemented, but a good amount of units didn't want the upgrade due to the inferior HE round. The Sherman suffers from so many myths and false stories unfortunately, which make it look like a shitty tank, yet it was reliable, field upgradable, mobile, and armed for its mission.

[@melgross]

@@TheDefend3r it was a great tank. But the myths begin as it was a “heavy” medium tank, not a heavy tank. It was designed to out fight any tank the Germans had at the time of the design, plus being overrated for that purpose. But by the middle of 1944, when the Germans were close to the end and they came out with these very heavy models, the standard Sherman was behind. That 17 pounder certainly made a big difference. The design board here knew they needed a heavy tank at that point, but it takes time.

[@TheDefend3r]

@@melgross I agree, but also disagree. The 76mm that was being introduced was comparative to the 17 pdr, but fit better in the turret. And it wasn't the panache design for going tank to tank. The US doctrine looked to have tanks involved in breakthrough and exploitation of the advance. It performed extremely well in that regard. When armed with the 75mm or even the 105 howitzer, the sherman was spectacular at exploiting a breakthrough and destroying infantry. The role that the US had for anti tank was the tank destroyer battalions, which would use towed guns, as well as the motorized tank destroyers to engage and defeat enemy armored advances or break through. However, by the late war, the Germans were less and less on the offense which put the sherman into the role of tank busting more often. But by this point, the easy 8 sherman with HVSs, wet stowage, and a 76mm could engage and defeat German armor at average engagement ranges. The downside that developed the bad rap for Sherman's came with tye fact that Germans were fighting defensively and most often got the drop on allied tankers from concealed and prepared fighting positions.

[@carletonchristensen9971]

You fail to mention that Fall Gelb took place in summer, Fall Herbstnebel in winter!

[@leojanuszewski1019]

German tanks were like today's German cars: Over-engineered & unreliable.

[@alpine9996]

@@leojanuszewski1019 when something is “over engineered”, it would be reliable. That’s why Toyota’s are so reliable. Overcomplicated makes it unreliable.

[@BobRoller-rp4sv]

German cars are legend in their own minds.I serviced them years ago.The Mercedes and the Jaguar are the reasons my wife and I have Lincoln Town Cars (3) and 2 Continentals. in the last 55 years.

[@bluemouse5039]

@@BobRoller-rp4sv The insides of the German auto engines are solid and durable, but it all the things around it that fail too much complexity and cheap plastic parts that crack and get leaks or break off as the vehicle ages and the plastics get brittle from years of getting hot and cold, plus many people ignore doing the required Maintenace the service manual calls for because the parts and service are very expensive

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

“Hanz, we ran out of fuel.”

[@bobbyb.6644]

No Fuel - Tired troopers - No air cover ? Heavy - long barreled Tanks were really effective on Russian Steppes - Not in forests - or in Urban Areas ! Stand off weapons ? 🤔

[@edmundcharles5278]

The Ardennes Offensive ala The Battle of the Bulge was strategically DOA (Dead of Arrival). Capturing Antwerp was not going to drastically change anything as Hitler was facing almost 7 million Red Army soldiers and 4.5 million Allied western front soldiers advancing across France and up through Italy, along with Supreme Air Superiority - none of these forces were either going to be affected or stopped by the razor thin German offensive which lacked any reinforcing follow-on troops. To make the German situation even more dismal, the Allies had miore materiel and troops enroute in 1944/45, whereas Germany was drained of both! The Germans Las lacked a viable tank recovery vehicle in sufficient quantities needed to salvage damaged battlefield tanks so in many cases perfectly good thanks had to be destroyed by their crews or abandoned. If anything, the Battle of the Bulge robbed Germany of badly needed home defense military resources and it almost certainly issued that the Red Armies would occupy vast portions of Europe instead of Allied western military forces and thereby helping to initiate the Cold War and the Iron Curtain.

[@John-jl9de]

The American tanks had a narrow width so they could be transported by ship.

[@volvo1354]

not only could some of the roads not accommodate larger German armored vehicles, they were unable to cross over many essential bridges because they were simply too heavy.

[@nigelconnor6960]

THANKS!!! Great production, historical facts and archive film......what was that weapon filled to that German half-track where the machine gun would have been, recoiling when fired, looked like a small 37 mm gun or something????? Thanks again.

[@laneromel5667]

One veteran I recently listened to, the Shermans made initial contact with German tanks, then the M18's came in and took out the German tanks. The weather during the Battle of the Bulge was too poor for aircraft to fly, so could not perform recon.

[@johnnyb2909]

You mentioned the problem already in the title. These tanks were designed for the eastern front and not for thevwestern front

[@edmundcharles5278]

Contrary to popular western military history beliefs and films, the greatest battles were fought on the eastern front ; 8 out of 10 Wehrmacht deaths occurred on the eastern front!

[@warrenbrenner4972]

Awesome footage! Great video!

[@FactBytes]

Thanks for visiting

[@Fiasco3]

German's lost on logistics not tanks. They pushed everything aside until the weather cleared and they came under air-attack. They just didn't have the supply chain to keep the tanks going.

[@melgross]

They didn’t have the fuel or ammo. It wasn’t just a poor supply chain. When you’ve got nothing, an excellent way to supply it doesn’t matter. But yes, German logistics throughout the war, in every front, was abysmal.

[@williamlilleston1595]

As with any and all military equipment, they are designed for specific tasks and conditions. German heavy tanks were designed for LONG RANGE fire in open conditions as was found on the Eastern Front. Whereas Western Europe is more dense and far less "long range" shooting was possible. We also need to take into account the year of the war / logistics / re-enforcements and the current state of the German war machine. Simply put, The Allies just plain had MORE of EVERYTHING.

[@litestuffllc7249]

The choice to build a big tank that uses a lot of fuel when you know you don't have much fuel is a mistake particularly if you want to use those tanks on the offensive. The Germans got the the Muse River which had they crossed it would have put them very close to their objective ; but - the cloud cover dissapeared and they were open to attack from allied aircraft as well as ground forces. It was a last ditch effort to set back the allies - a better use of the fuel would have been to use it for ME262s in an effort to shut down allied strategic bombing; how ever that would have required Hitler to change his mind and use them as fighters - not very likely.

[@touristguy87]

"The choice to build a big tank that uses a lot of fuel when you know you don't have much fuel is a mistake particularly if you want to use those tanks on the offensive." ...they were not designed to be used on the offensive, they were not maneuver-oriented tanks. They especially were not designed to maneuver on narrow muddy roads in forests and small towns and as well they were too big and heavy for most rural bridges. How can this point have escaped you so thoroughly. I feel fatigue just at the idea of restating the obvious to someone who missed it the first 5 times.

[@touristguy87]

...I've had the unfortunate experience now of reading your entire comment. Can you not find something at which you might be at least somewhat successful? You clearly have no capability to comment intelligently on the war.

[@lionel66cajppppp0]

All tanks use a lot of fuel

[@litestuffllc7249]

@@lionel66cajppppp0 True but a Tiger tank got under 1/2 mile per gallon. A Sherman got near twice the mpg; so twice the weight generally means half the range for the same fuel; or you could run 2 lighter tanks for 1 twice as heavy. F=MA - force equals mass times acceleration; assuming both tanks accellerate about the same - energy used is proporational to weight. The Tiger II was more than twice the cost to make also. The Battle of the Bulge was a last ditch effort with little chance of success given the shortage of fuel and Allied airsuperiority. Using the fuel for Me 262s a smarter move. Hitler never really understood the idea of defence. Many of his big errors were due to his obssession to attack.

[@touristguy87]

@@lionel66cajppppp0 they also all have turrets

[@NemoBlank]

The SS formation Kampfgruppe Peiper was made up of shattered survivors and a lot of replacement crews straight from the Hitler Youth. Although they had been trained reasonably well and had a bunch of combat fatigue cases as their leaders, they lacked both supplies and experience maneuvering in the very different country of the Western Front due to factors that you can't see on a map. Combat Command A, however, was well experienced, well supplied, well led and well manned by veteran tank crews that were supported by good infantry, air and artillery. It was a last ill supported all or nothing gamble by Grofaz Hitler. The tanks themselves had different strengths and weaknesses, but with all the other factors they were comparable enough that if the sides had switched tanks prior to the offensive it would have been largely irrelevant.

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

THREE surprise German offensives through the Ardennes Forest. In 1914, an unexpected German offensive through the Ardennes Forest surprised the Allies. In 1940, an unexpected German offensive through the Ardennes Forest surprised the Allies. In 1944, an unexpected German offensive through the Ardennes Forest surprised the Allies. WHY? It had happened TWICE BEFORE? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me THRICE, I am an idiot."

[@markymark3572]

They ran out of petrol.

[@newtnguyen5880]

When people realize that Hitler was in command about everything, people wouldn't question why the failure !

[@willp3561]

Yes, he meddled too much in strategic planning while having NO real skill for it.

[@bluemouse5039]

Actually, the Tigers reign of terror was about over by 1944, the allies had bridged the gap in firepower of their tanks like the 17 pounder in the Sherman Firefly and the Soviets up gunned the T-34 to 85mm guns along with other tanks like the Stalin Tank with a 122mm gun that could now penetrate the Tigers once invincible armor, where the Germans could no longer expect to take on other tanks and not get knocked out

[@RandyArmy]

Germany in late war mostly destroyed by Warplane, in the east IL-2 In the west P thunderbolt mustang

[@JanKnoester]

Lowan ammo And Low on gasolin that was the reason

[@Sublette217]

Bridges that could not bear the weight…

[@lionel66cajppppp0]

If you read the actual german records they say that the artillery made it impossible to mount a defence If tanks were spotted ir even suspected they woukd get a rolling artillery attack forcing them to retreat This is why

[@Gungho1a]

Armour heavy forces trying to fight through rough terrain tied to a poor road network. The big advantage of german armour was to engage at long range, and historically the only victories the germans had in NW europe were defensive, by tying themselves to the short range fight they squandered their advantages, and choked themselves with too many vehicles on too few roads. In simple terms, in comparison, in twice the time it took for the soviets to eradicate army group centre, the wehrmact only made a dent in a US army. By late '44 german operational doctrine was outdated and failing...it simply took longer to become apparent in the west, against the far less professional western armies.

[@user-wo2iw3kt8o]

Sherman tanks were lighter and manuvered quite well. And could cross engineer bridges. And could be hauled by ship and off loaded easily. Better tank all around.

[@John14-6...]

At 4:22 the German soldier I've seen so many times in different documentaries. He looks like he would be a Gunther or a Hans.

[@willp3561]

I recognized him from many other videos as well.

[@user-wo2iw3kt8o]

Don't forget. They ran head on into general Patton. .

[@coachhannah2403]

Who did? Not at the Bulge...

[@user-wo2iw3kt8o]

@coachhannah2403 yes the nazis ran into Patton Crayon Abrams kicked the guts out of the nazis and relived bastone. Patton went through the German army like shit though a goose. Read your history books. I'm a very proud US army veteran 12 bravo.

[@coachhannah2403]

@@user-wo2iw3kt8o - Well, no. Abrams, of Patton's Third Army, ground his way through stiff German resistance under adverse conditions. Note the actor, here. Germans did not 'run into' Patton. Patton did not 'go through' the German Army as you describe. It was vicious and heavy fighting with a lot of casualties, not the open armored thrusts Patton liked. I've likely read more history this year than you have in your entire life.

[@brustar5152]

What about the UK Sherman derivative of the Firefly you failed to mention as being capable of eliminating a Panzer and indeed even the Tigers I & II ?

[@maklajevski88]

Tiger II only in your dreams 😂

[@ashcarrier6606]

Bigger IS better, when the technology available can deliver the horsepower, torque, and drive train you need for it.

[@flournoymason8961]

Germany should have nown beter. Their tactics which included atrocities caused the countries they were fighting to fight harder and taking on Russia, Great Britain and America and having to deal with partisans etc they should have known they could not win such a war. Aristotle once said you destroy a enemy more effectively the least you destroy them. Don't give the locals a reason to hate you like the Germans were. Give the conquered peoples something in return. They murdered civilians in Russia that might have helped them fight communism. America didn't completely lose the Vietnamese war becuase three years after we left the North Vietnamese wanted us to return and continue with some of our projects such as but not limited to making and distributing electricity for the locals. They wanted us to help them make and maintain hospitals and schools which we were building during our stay in VIetnam.

[@user-xh3lz9xt4l]

Oh shit the weather has cleared now we are screwed, oh no here is the allied tactical airforce, Tempests, and P47s, bye bye German armour

[@theluckyegg3613]

Without watching: Not enough fuel, once the cloud coverage was gone, the planes arrived and guess what...

[@RafaelOliveira-gl8jd]

Gostaria de acompanhar este canal em português, o KZbin pode traduzir e seu canal tem maior alcance.

[@Hope-ki8do]

Sim, seria muito interessante

[@jasoncallow860]

The western front was a side show compared to the eastern front. The bulk of German forces were committed in the east.

[@melgross]

Actually, it wasn’t that simple. When Italy was invaded, Germany withdrew around 300,000 troops from the eastern front, plus all the equipment it required. They maintained almost 4 million troops in the west, waiting for an invasion in France, plus all of that equipment.

[@partygrove5321]

While their tanks were good, they lacked everything else starting with fuel and ammo

[@user-ww9ch1hm2r]

Big and heavy always fall to its weight.

[@yoshshmenge294]

Who launches a huge offensive without taking logistics into account? Oh right, the Germans.

[@LeonardGarcia-yn2ej]

Hello Fellow Historians You All Did Your Homework Well Educated; Thanks For Keeping Their Immortality 💐💐💐🫡 Hello From Long Beach Country 💐🌊🌅🌃🍀🍀🍀

[@JohnGruber-di3cw]

That was the Germans biggest mistake with the unreliable Tiger Tanks.Wasted money & resources that they couldn't afford.Impractical!!! They would've been much better off with more Stugs & Anti Tank weapons instead of the Panther & Tiger Tanks.

[@AndrewBrowner]

is this a digital narrator or a human narrator i honestly cant tell, it sound like both at moments

[@stevesteelman7802]

🇩🇪 German 🏭 industry had better quality control in their war machine than Russia had. Russians were putting out more tanks planes and weapons at the end of the war. Hitler was foolish not to build lots of aircraft carriers and fighter bomber airplanes before the war started. He didnt listen to his generals very much. They wanted to drive tanks all the way to Dunkirk and blast the British and French on the beaches. Good thing for the Allies, Hitler balked and stopped. Hitler was stupid not to ally with Stalen. All his Wehrmact and luftwaffe that was eventually destroyed going way into Russia 😮

[@janusx66]

4:48 The Panthers high costs ? It was only a fraction more expensive then a Panzer IV.... and that is a fact! It is wel documented in manny books to, and if you are lucky and have a original price book from nazi germany from that time it confirms this, i have seen it. The main problem was fuel, Germany had no own oil sources, that was why they wanted to expand eastwards into the Sovjet Union, and by doing so capture the oil fields in the Kaukasus. That the Generals tweaked Hitlers plan for that and went to Moscow and thus failled Operation Barbarossa is not well known due to marxist historians.

[@gredw6733]

A load of BS!

[@willp3561]

I could be misinformed but I thought Hitler changed plans & split up forces to march on Stalingrad, is this not accurate?

[@willp3561]

@janusx66 I thought that Hitler changed plans & split his forces up to march on Stalingrad, is this not accurate?

[@melgross]

Ok, that’s sort of correct. But it has nothing to do with Marxist historians. The surviving German generals, after the war, wrote books and did interviews that portrayed Hitler as “Mad Hitler”, and that if he had only listened to them, they could have won the war. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. The plan to take Moscow was the chief of staff’s plan. That was Halder. Hitler did want to go directly for the oil in Ukraine. When the attack on Moscow failed, and that could have been partly because Hitler took some of the forces away to go to the south, Hitler took control and aimed the southern army to Ukraine. It was a hopeless cause. There wasn’t enough to keep the territory in the center and north and push through the south. But, realistically, if Germany followed Hitler’s original plan and went south, the northern flank would have been weak, and much of the Soviet Union would have been intact, along with much of the northern armies. Then Germany would have faced that, much closer to their borders. No natter what, it was hopeless.

[@melgross]

@@willp3561while the final push to Moscow was occurring, Hitler took some if those forces away and put them further to the south. When holder’s Moscow plan failed, Hitler fired him and took control. At that point, they knew they host the war, but were desperate and he pushed for the march into Ukraine. Stalingrad was important as it controlled the river up in which Moscow would have used to being its forces.

[@antoinemozart243]

The tigers were already useless in Kursk. Without artillery and air force support they are toys waiting to be destroyed. In 1942 when the idiot Manstein was sent in Leningrad with the new Tigers, these were completely stuck in marshes and water without destroying anything. 😂😂😂😂

[@mikyl-fo8rh]

In regard to many very good T34s vs fewer ‘superior’ Nazi tanks, Stalin said that quantity is a quality within itself. He was correct.

[@bwilliams463]

Was German industry employing the same assembly line system as the U.S.?

[@melgross]

Another German problem. It’s a myth about how well German production worked. Unlike in the USA, German tank and airplane production, as well as most others, except for small arms, required a lot of hand work, including grinding, honing shafts and holes, etc. It’s one reason why it took a lot of skill. When these skilled workers were removed, subsequent production slowed down and had a lot of substandard parts. It takes years for someone to gain a lot if those skills. I do machine work in my shops. Some of it isn’t easy.

[@bwilliams463]

@@melgross Thank you for the clarification.

[@ryleeculla5570]

The tanks to heavy the tanks suspension gets fucked an the engine burns out plus it means your so slow chaso can litterly run faster then you 85 ton panzer

[@kenlang5268]

I cringe every time the narrator butcher's the name's of German officer's or unit's.

[@SimonHeartfield]

It's AI generated. The intonation is wrong with lots of other words too.

[@EricS-uf9mv]

This is easily top 5 most GENERICALLY BLAND ChatGPT written & AI voiced "documentary" I've seen on YT. Impressively sad.

[@tophat2115]

cutting down on truck production cuts into logistics, which will destroy any army

[@LeonardGarcia-yn2ej]

Forever Young 😮

[@000Monkeylord]

Sounds like the German tanks had a supply/quality control issue but the tanks themselves were alright I guess otherwise why would they be feared and get this big reputation as a scary weapon.

[@melgross]

Because even if it’s broken down so that it can’t move, with a lot of armor and a big gun, it could still be dangerous until it’s taken out.

[@Red72618]

Western and Asian modern tank is also bigger. Size does matter

[@danielsnook7362]

Yeah why do you think they're making a light tank in America and trying to replace the Abrams with a lighter MBT clearly wight is not a good thing😂

[@danielsnook7362]

If size matters why did they make the m10 Booker. Plus the Abrams x is supposed to be far lighter than the Abrams a2🤦

[@t.j.payeur5331]

Just another halfassed post-game analysis ..with a lame robot narrator. I love the cleaned up footage though.

[@davidmartyn5044]

As we drift further and further from WW2, I often wonder why so many men live in the past.

[@daveshepherd1865]

Great content, but... the ro-bot-ic na--ray-tor is quite annoy-ing...

[@arthurdirindinjr1792]

50 Shermans baring down on your position against a few operational Tiger I's or Panthers BTLS out of the rest of the Tiger I's and Panthers on the side of the road broken down Having the most armor and the biggest canon means JS if you're not in the fight because your constantly suffering mechanical problems that take only hours to fix on a Sherman these same problems took days to fix in a Panther or Tiger and thats if the Germans even had the parts which post 1944 more often than not they didn't

[@braxxian]

The Panther was basically the German version of the T-34. Funny how the Germans ended up using designs from “inferior” peoples at the end.

[@Invading-Specious]

Over engineered most likely, because its german.

[@johnwalsh7256]

The T34 was basically a Christie influenced design from superior peoples, the Americans.

[@WmPryor1]

@@johnwalsh7256 LOL! You beat me to the punch.

[@OhBrotherMAn]

28million…

[@MikeHunt-fo3ow]

@@johnwalsh7256 lol i wonder what country christie came from prior to migrating

[@rodillsoongobacktoprintedi5605]

Sloped glassy armor?

[@Kevin-mx1vi]

The word is "glacis" (pronounced "glassy"). The glacis of a tank is its sloped frontal armour plate.

[@user-gj5gb7fd6n]

Ironically the American Tanks were better suited for Blitzkrieg, and the built-up area of the Ardennes..

[@benquinneyiii7941]

No horses

[@mrjagriff]

Another in the series How the US won the war 🙄

[@Gagra-Adler]

👍👍👍✌👌🖐

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Why these AI videos clik all the time?

[@ElNino-op2sg]

Germans don't own heavy Tanks exept Maus .Tiger and Panter are not classyfied as heavy. At the end StuG are more efective.

[@nahornig]

Blumpkin

[@jens-eriklangstrand1689]

How strange - americans tell us all about what happend - author preempted, you go hide in the mountains, better!

[@augnkn93043]

Boring and uninformed.

[@user-ne1vx7mj1b]

By the way production for USSR suffered as well. Over heated metal caused brittle armor on t34 etc

[@cjp5919]

why ever would you use a story like this to promote a traitor, kameltoe haiirass?