THE FORGOTTEN BATTLE. THE BIGGEST TANK BATTLE IN BRITISH ARMY HISTORY

Allied strategy, was to draw German armoured Divisions to the British allowing the Americans to breakout to the west. By the end of June 1944, all German armoured forces in Normandy were concentrated on the British front.

[@tonyjedioftheforest1364]

Brilliant video. Mr mum’s brother Sgt Major Tom Eckersley was in the York and Lancs and was wounded and buried alive for several days in a cellar on the outskirts of Caen. I was proud to go on the Normandy veterans association days out with him and heard many stories of the campaign from those who were there. All were very modest but very brave men.

[@malcolmyoung7866]

Thanks for this.. and good to mention the civilian casualties in those villages. Knowing that the British had to deal with 6 Panzer Divisions whilst the Russians were up against fewer Panzer divisions at that time, the level of British casualties, the 400 Dead Panzer Grenadiers on that hill etc.. brings that battle completely into context. Eisenhower wanted swift action and didn’t get that outcome.. he was probably right at the time.. in his own and staff headquarters minds… Pretty sure that Monty would have taken the criticism as well as anyone could… should be noted that Monty wasn’t sacked! R.I.P. Those killed…

[@HankD13]

The Caen sector beaches were the most heavily fortified and had great defence in depth - to protect the city - the Germans knew it was a key target. There was very little behind Omaha and Utah once the coastal defences were overcome. With Caen, The terrain, the defences like Hillman, the rise to Carpiquet and the rivers to cross and the concentration of Panzer division made the taking of Caen a very slow and bloody business. US criticism of the British in Normandy has always rankled. Many British fighting in Normandy had been at war for 5 long and often bloody years

[@28pbtkh23]

Everyone criticizes the British and Canadians, and especially Monty, for taking ages to capture Caen. But they forget that Monty wasn't interested in taking the town for its own sake. Unfortunately, he had briefed the press differently and so everyone was expecting him to take it. The real aim was to draw the German armour away from the American sector and destroy it, which was achieved. Everyone wanted a quick victory in Normandy, but the Americans were also having difficulty in taking St. Lo. The important thing is that ultimate victory was achieved in Normandy ahead of the timetable.

[@HankD13]

@@28pbtkh23 True, but pretty sure Monty wanted Caen and Carpiquet on the first day - he was always an optimist and a massive self publicist. It was just unrealistic - and with German armour already around Caen, and then the reinforcements that hurried there from the Pas de Calais area made it more so. Pretty sure he "adapted" his plan to fit the reality on the ground. The British and Canadians (and Poles) had a great deal of hard and bloody fighting against stiff opposition in strong defences. Just seems to get overlooked too often.

[@jeremyjones5436]

What is missing from this piece on Hill112 is that the 5th battalion of Duke of Cornwall light infantry attacked on 10 July took and then held Hill 112 retreating 11July after 19 hours enduring 12 attacks by the men and tanks of 10th Panzer. Of 380 men, 250 were killed or wounded.In this time the Cornishmen had smashed one of Hitlers elite units . In memory of the sacrifice the local people renamed the hill Cornwall Hill and the wood Cornwall wood. The 5th Battalion was a territorial army unit.It was feared the unit would be disbanded due to the amount of casualties but was reinforced by 100 men from the 4th Battalion.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Men of steel.

[@andrewcombe8907]

When they snuck in the crap line about Monty being “overrated” in Saving Private Ryan I nearly screamed. 10 Divisions.

[@muttley5958]

I can remember that derogatory comment as well, it also wound me up 😠

[@JohnBooth-bl3rh]

Yes and they included Tiger tanks in Both Saving Private Ryan AND Band of Brothers !!! The Americans didn’t fight any until they got near to Germany .

[@nicktrueman224]

They always make out he is a terrible commander. It crops up in bridge to far as well with German marshals making comments. Yes he made mistakes they all did but he did his best under extreme pressure.

[@jonsouth1545]

@@nicktrueman224 Actual contemporanious German intelligence adn army records clearly indicate they rated Montgomery very highly and most of them had never even heard of Patton he was considered a minor actor at best.

[@michaelel650]

To be fair, Montgomery's first desert success was designed by someone else and went as the other guy planned. Alamein was a political battle forced by Churchill and fought in a pedestrian WW1 kind of way. N.B. the reference for this is the book, 'The Desert Generals'. It was fought because Churchill wanted a big offensive British victory before the landings in North Africa. When the Afrika Korps finally retreated Montgomery followed up very cautiously and missed the chance to crush them whilst retreating. It would have been more 'cost effective' to pin the Afrika Korps against the British defensive lines as far east as possible and then when they had no option but to run west after the landings in North Africa and destroy a fleeing army from the air. Churchill chose to expend the lives of British soldiers for a possible post-war imperial advantage. Whether this was worth it or not depends on how you think. Anyway Monty just went with it. Post D-Day Montgomery seems to have oscillated between being over-optimistic/over-confident and overly cautious. Market Garden being one of the over-optimistic ventures. He seems to have been brilliant in reassuring and motivating the forces he lead, especially the rank and file, but more difficult to work with the closer you were to him since, like Patton, he seem to begin to believe his own myth. He was tenacious and perhaps his greatest moment was the skilful realignment of his forces during the Battle of the Bulge. He led excellently trained, highly motivated and courageous men, fighting for a world free of both fascism and nazism in particular, and thus highly motivated. This was reflected in the 1945 election results. By this time in the war the rank and file could really use their initiative and it is to these men, to their courage, tenacity and collective determination that we owe our freedoms. I mourn this as I see our current society sliding into the kind autocracy, corporatism and authoritarianism, even forms of imperialism, that they fought and died to eliminate. All the best to you.

[@robertpatrick3350]

It notable the the British and Commonwealth forces destroyed more Tiger tanks in this battle than the US forces encountered in the whole of the campaign

[@JohnBooth-bl3rh]

By campaign you mean the whole European theatre.

[@davidwoody5228]

Hmmm. You know there were lots of Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge, right? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II#:~:text=The%20Tiger%20II%20was%20also,the%20course%20of%20the%20offensive.

[@davidwoody5228]

Nearly a third of all Tiger lls ever produced were in the Battle of the Bulge and almost all were lost.

[@ogukuo72]

@@JohnBooth-bl3rh I think the Normandy Campaign. It is true that most of German heavy panzers - or any panzers for that matter - were concentrated around the Caen area. This is logical as the terrain there is more suitable for armored warfare. Of course, once the Americans broke out of the bocage country into more open terrain, the Germans were caught flat-footed.

[@JohnBooth-bl3rh]

@@davidwoody5228 They ran out of petrol or broke down and then were destroyed by the Germans mainly in the Ardennes offensive.

[@billballbuster7186]

A very well researched presentation, far more accurate than the German fan boy version. The British never gave themselves enough credit for the wholesale destruction of Army Group West. The Germans failed to take any of their stated objectives, they were largely destroyed before they got anywhere near the beaches. Eisenhower said "Monty was the only General that could get us across the Chanel and keep us there, it was his kind of fight"

[@JohnSmith-un9jm]

Because the germans had no air force to speak of, is why they lost the battle.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@JohnSmith-un9jm Germany lost the war in 1940 when it failed to knock out Britain and then attacked Russia in 1941. Even the most rookie commander knows you never ever fight on two fronts.

[@stephenhannell1370]

Nothing like facing us brits in any war just ask the argies,the British are never given any credit for the way we fight as soldiers.throughtout ww2 all I hear is America won the war,well my fine friends from the USA "NOT WITHOUT US BRITS YOU NEVER"

[@nobbytang]

A whole German motorised division was destroyed by Naval gunfire …Tiger tank crews returning to their tanks found them upside down 50 mtrs away from where they were ….totally destroyed …..in the Sicily invasion Naval gunfire proved devastating too and the Germans without even Air parity were always gonna lose ….

[@nobbytang]

A whole German motorised division forming up was destroyed by Naval gunfire …Tiger tank crews returning to their tanks found them upside down 50 mtrs away from where they were ….totally destroyed …..in the Sicily invasion Naval gunfire proved devastating too and the Germans without even Air parity were always gonna lose ….

[@simons.2948]

Great telling of the story, you never hear this truth mentioned in any yank war film. They like to portray us as clowns. Brave and tenacious capturing 112. My wife’s grandfather was there and said how arduous it was.

[@TheEarl777]

We will remember them.

[@clivedunning4317]

Thank you John for an excellent presentation.

[@Templeborough]

Excellent accurate account. The point about Montgomery drawing the main weight of the German thrust onto the British sector leaving the Americans free to pivot concurs with the explanation of the owner of the Normandy farm where I worked in 1968. There were still reminders of those battles when I worked there.

[@JohnAshworth2023]

Thanks for an interesting video. At 4.04, you refer to Lieutenant-General Miles Dempsey as LOOtenant-General. In the British Army, isn't Lieutenant pronounced LEFtenant?

[@user-sq6hs1hz9u]

Thank you for this, the common and popular view of the allied invasion of Europe is that the Americans did all the heavy lifting while the UK/commonwealth forces held their coat. Your video helps dispel this narrative.

[@leeshackelford7517]

Your words are BS. Anyone with half a brain, and any interest in WWII, knows of the "British draw the Pz Div onto thrm while the Americans break out .... Im from San Francisco, do im American....but egads...i think i was 8 when I read Their Finest Hour by Churchill.....and saw his table showing how many US and British divisions active at different areas of the war.

[@davidmcintyre998]

Not that many Americans think like that, in the 1980s i met some US veterans, getting on even then they were touring the places they had known as young men both here and on the continent probably the last time and less Hollywood you could not be pure gentlemen, i hope they are all in a better place, its our own attitude we need to scrutinise not theirs as they had stood up and did what had to be done.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

I've often told American posters that the main Battle of Normandy was fought around Caen against SS and Panzer divisions and that the American Army essentially drove around the main battle while facing mostly Whermacht conccripts. Well. "You couldn't be more wrong!" they always say. Three generations of Tru Gutz Kommix history says so.

[@billballbuster7186]

Essentiall correct, the Americans were protected by Monty and his 21st Army Group that checked the German Army Group West around Caen. the Germans fed in 2,400 tanks and Stugs but the line held. The US were tasked with clearing the Cotentin Peninsula and taking Cherbourg, which took a lot longer than planned. By the time of the Cobra breakout the Germans were down to just 180 tanks and Stugs. So there were no large tank v tank battles in the US sector

[@abrahamdozer6273]

@@billballbuster7186 It was a good, successful tactic but generations of Americans believe that their army alone did all of the fighting when the reverse is closer to the truth.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@abrahamdozer6273 Yes the Americans in general have a very limited knowledge of what went on in WW2. They also get very angry and defensive when you try to give them facts. The Hollywood and History Chanel crapola has addled their minds

[@boomerreb4997]

The British and Canadians showed incredible courage and resilience. I think the tendency of some in the U.S. to understate is due to Montgomery's being such an ass.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@boomerreb4997 Well, its that type of crap that is a red rag to a bull on here. Yes Monty was abrupt and undiplomatic, but his military record can not be faulted, especially by the Americans. Who constantly accused him of doing the same shit they were doing only far worse. Add to that British commanders were strictly forbidden to criticize Americans, so all the crap flows in one direction.

[@nickbutler7935]

Thanks for all your time and effort compiling this.

[@nigelmansfield3011]

Very informative. I assume the 'British' forces included the Canadians who played such a pivotal role in closing the Falaise gap.

[@jackmoorehead2036]

The biggest loss for the Germans was Armor. The Brits losses were made up in a week, the Gemans never.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Germans fed 2,400 tanks and Stugs into Normandy during the battle, so it was a major disaster for them.

[@josephberrie9550]

if its british its armour

[@youarewhatyouare]

My grandad fought in this one he was a fully qualified barrel mate he used to roll out the barrels when the battle started he got st. Vitus dance and being only 3 foot 6 tall and weighing only 4 stone he hid in the barrel of the tank knowing full well it might be fired at any time but the tank commander knew he was hiding again and didn't fire after the conflict the tank commander got a standing ovation from his once crew

[@cricketerfrench7501]

I see that you use still photographs instead of short video clips. As the supply of video is much smaller than the photographic record I find this a welcome change from seeing the same old clips over and over. It reminds me of a letter sent in to the Radio Times, the correspondent asked if the BBC could please show The Yellow Rose of Texas once more as he had forgotten some of the words.

[@jdgooner4845]

Thank you for clarifying a so underrated achievement by the British army, my friends dad was in the 49th west ridding , the the yanks love to betray the British as slow moving, tea drinking & having to depend on the good old USA, & this is been the attitude they’ve brotrayed about the British Army, even to the extent of their PLay station war games, making out the poles , the Canadians , the yanks all had to wait for the Slow Modfodical British to eventually joining the battle at Faillaise gap , how insulting,

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Considering how so much slower the Americans were in the Hurtgen Forest and Lorraine etc, then getting pushed back into a retreat in the Ardennes, their jibes about the British being slow are astonishing.

[@abrahamdozer6273]

Believe it or not, it was the Polish Division attached to the Canadians that finally closed the Falaise Gap.

[@samartin745]

US never won anything without help. Massive egos the lot. Money and image is what counts with them.

[@boomerreb4997]

I'm an American and such behavior by other Americans is ungracious and embarrassing.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@jdgooner4845 Yes after this Battle, the British under Horrocks advanced over 350 miles in 6 days. Far from the slow myths.

[@GaveMeGrace1]

Thank you.

[@lookeast3047]

Thanks John - very good.

[@ianlayton6949]

Really good presentation and in finer detail that most. Well done. Just one bit to think on though - Not Loo-tenant, but Lef-tenant in the British Army. Other than that one jarring moment you were top notch. 👍👍

[@janesda]

(6:50) At that time, the Russians faced the 34 divisions of Army Group Centre on part of the Eastern Front. Between 22 June and 11 August the Soviets destroyed 28 of those divisions during Operation Bagration, another forgotten battle. Elsewhere on this 600-mile Eastern front, the Soviets faced Army Group North and Army Group South.

[@CmoreChap]

I think the point he was trying to make was not in terms of 'TOTAL' numbers but 'concentration' in a small area .. I think? I think he meant to say the Soviets faced 9 "Panzer" divisions on the 600 miles front vs British facing 6 "Panzer" divisions facing on a 60 mile front. ...but ... I have NOT checked these figures, I am trying to understand his point. Except for instance 'technically' the British faced units/elements of 8 Panzer Divisions during Epsom not 6 as he stated. 12th SS Hitlerjugend, 9th SS Hohenstaufen, 10th SS Frundsberg, 1st SS Leibstandarte, 2nd SS Das Reich, 2nd Panzer Division (One battlegroup based around a tank battalion) , Panzer-Lehr-Division (elements), 21st Panzer Division, plus Heavy SS Panzer Battalion 101. P.S. the main thrust was by just 3 British Divisions (2 Infantry/1 armored) plus supporting elements/Battalions. My guess would also be that 60 miles was the entire British/Canadian front or the Entire Normandy front at that time including the American I am not sure of the distances, but Operation Epsom front less than 5 miles at its widest(!) and focussed on two hills (112/113) and on a ridge within a couple of miles of each other yet the battlefield was so focused/condensed/narrow and contained so much and the committment of so many German units in counter attack. Monty was heavily criticized though in truth it was General Sir Miles Dempsey's plan and leadership, and seriously it amazes me how much they expected given the terrain, defences, quality and numbers of the defenders that only just managed to stop Epsom in the end by the commitment of everything practically 'available' from across the whole Normandy front.

[@trevorfuller1078]

@@CmoreChap Out of a total of 38 Divisions originally committed to its Normandy Campaign in 1944, the German High Command in the West (Oberkommando-West/OKW) reinforced their total army units over June to August, 1944, by an additional 30 divisions thus having then available totally 68 divisions but had lost in the ensuing combat with Allied Forces, 55 full divisions (42 infantry divisions & 13 Armoured/Panzer divisions) & the remaining 13 divisions were degraded to around 50% or less of their normal operational strength & combat effectiveness! Nearly 80% of these losses had then been inflicted by British & Canadian Forces in their various Normandy Campaign’s battles over this time between 06/June & the 21/August/1944 (In the 77-days of its total duration) in, around & immediately behind the landing beaches also both within the city & surrounding Caen areas & culminating at the joint-Allied action & the destruction of the bulk of the German Army in France at the “Falaise Pocket!” There has never been before or subsequently, such a high concentration, over such a restrictive area of engaged combatants anywhere, of both German & Allied, elite & regular standards, armoured, infantry or artillery, combat units (In particular, as within the contiguous three Anglo-Canadian sectors, running east to west, thus then making up ‘Sword,’ ‘Juno’ & ‘Gold’ Beaches respectively, & which had then constituted in total only about 30 to 35 miles of these original beach areas’ distances, & which had then also involved such a large range & numbers of deployed interactive combat operations & systems in WW2 or probably even since that time! These significant facts were subsequently concurred & acknowledged by both military historians & even immediately afterwards by the official Soviet Government’s military observers, who were then actually assigned to the Allied invasion Forces in the 1944 Normandy Campaign!

[@2nolhta]

@@trevorfuller1078 Could you compare it to Stalingrad by numbers?

[@trevorfuller1078]

@@2nolhta : Hi 👋 Basically, statistically speaking, the Normandy campaign was roughly two-thirds the size of Stalingrad campaign in terms of the sheer manpower involved! But exact comparisons between the two campaigns are difficult to draw! For example how do you factor in the 6,500 + naval vessels of all shapes, sizes, types & descriptions, as well as their respective crews, who were then actively available & deployed within the Normandy campaign, but obviously, conversely were absent from the Stalingrad battlefields? The combined Wehrmacht & Waffen SS per se suffered some 700,000 total casualties (KIA, MIA, Wounded & Captured) at Stalingrad. In comparison by the end of August 1944 they had suffered around 650,000 similar casualties of all types in Normandy. However, at Stalingrad, you must also add onto the total Axis/German casualties lists, approximately additional 120,000 Italians; 150,000 Romanians, & another 130,000 Hungarians adding up to an extra 400,000 to the previous German total of 700,000, making a grand total of 1,100,000 Axis casualties at Stalingrad, In total also there, the Axis powers suffered over 500,000 Deaths (KIA or MIA & never formally accounted for!) The Soviets in comparison only have official estimates or at best extrapolations to use here! However, it is conservatively judged that the Red Army & other Soviet units recorded in-between 1,347,214 to 2,672,000 total casualties of all types & in excess of well over 1,000,000 from KIA, MIA, later died of wounds or sickness. It became apparent that neither the respective German nor Soviet senior Generals, nor each of their planning staffs either seemed to be aware of, or at all subscribed to Monty’s philosophy or operational policy of preferring & prioritizing the use of military machinery & equipment to take the majority of the damage & destruction if required, rather than engaging in a needless slugfest & lethal wastage of merely just using endless swarms of infantrymen against tanks, highly fortified bunkers or else unnecessarily exposed, particularly in the open, to high concentrations & levels of intensity of heavy & lethally accurate artillery fire. Soldiers on each side were merely expendable materials to be deployed &/or disposed of as they saw fit! Furthermore, to additionally demonstrate these points in comparison with Monty & his staff’s planning efforts & their actual execution on the ground in ‘Operation Overlord’, in Normandy, the Axis (German) Forces, when making these same ‘casualty rates’ comparisons, appear to have suffered then between an estimated 500,000 to 530,000 casualties of all descriptions (KIA/MIA, wounded or captured) in total. In comparison, total Allied losses of all descriptions (Also KIA/MIA, wounded or captured) were: US 🇺🇸 124,397 (Incl. 20.668 KIA); UK 🇬🇧 65,000 (Incl. 11,000 KIA); Canada 🇨🇦 18,444 (Incl. 5,021 KIA); Poland 🇵🇱 2,100 total & France 🇫🇷 (Military only) also 2,000 + Other combatant Nationalities est. also around 2,000 this would make a combined Allied Casualty total of around 215,000 men altogether, of which KIA or died of wounds constituted around or slightly less than 40,000 fatalities! The brutal nature, no quarter given or expected conditions of the warfare on the Eastern Front as well as the higher numbers of men deployed on both sides over the vast lengths & tracts of land & their distances involved, both in Russia & later in Eastern Europe, inevitably led to much higher recorded casualty rates on both sides, but particularly with Soviet forces! Alternatively, in Normandy the fighting was extremely intense & concentrated on relatively short & restricted geographical areas that resulted in extremely fast combat tempos, as well as repetitive large-scale attacks & similar counter-attacks that often resulted in much higher daily casualty rates, often even exceeding those similar daily casualty statistics of the Battles of the Somme (1916) & Passchendaele (1917) in WW1! However, due to the Allies relatively rapid progress in this Battle (Operation Overlord lasting only 77 days instead of the estimated & planned for 90 days of combat duration. Thus attaining complete success & victory almost 2 weeks ahead of its scheduled timetable of set completion!!), the casualty rates although relatively intense were in fact suppressed due to Montgomery’s (Particularly Monty here!), Dempsey’s, Bradley’s & Hodges’s desire & preference of using a combination of integrated firepower consisting of artillery (Including Naval) & vast & almost limitless amounts of it too, tactical & strategic air power & overwhelming numbers of Allied armoured units & their accompanying equipment, ammunition & supplies (Importantly of which included medical & particularly casualty support services & then new antibiotics medicines & medical equipment & operational systems that served to vastly reduce combatants’ related deaths &/or amputations due to the aftereffects of gangrene & other lethal infections, as well as in many cases reducing the lengths & amounts of recovery & recuperation time for wounded soldiers etc., thus rendering many later available to report back to their unit for further war service!), mobile repair workshops & their other support staffs & systems that were able to repair & render ready again for active service over 70% of the seriously damaged or knocked out fighting vehicles, hence to be re-deployed, something of absolute & critical importance that the German forces could only dream about! These advantages were additionally backed up by a generally sparing, judicious & skillful use (Whenever possible or practical to deploy) of infantry support at selected points in timely & casualty economical ways, thus avoiding too many unnecessary WW1, Western Front type bloodbaths of casualties!), deploying specialized mechanical devices or weapon systems instead, e.g. “Hobart’s Funnies” (79th Armoured Division) etc., to overcome defensive obstacles & well defended resistance points, while restricting Allied infantry casualties to a minimum. The resulting wounded (Approx. 5.5:1 ratio) to death ratios in Allied casualty rates seem to prove & substantiate this observation here! Moreover, the joint miracle of the Mulberry Harbours & PLUTO enabled & ensured the Allied logistics train & long tail of consistent & almost uninterrupted supplies to the constantly moving frontlines also proved crucial to Overlord’s successful victory & related outcomes!

[@trevorfuller1078]

Out of a total of 38 Divisions originally committed to its Normandy Campaign in 1944, the German High Command in the West (Oberkommando-West/OKW) reinforced their total army units over June to August, 1944, by an additional 30 divisions thus having then available totally 68 divisions but had lost in the ensuing combat with Allied Forces, 55 full divisions (42 infantry divisions & 13 Armoured/Panzer divisions) & the remaining 13 divisions were degraded to around 50% or less of their normal operational strength & combat effectiveness! Nearly 80% of these losses had then been inflicted by British & Canadian Forces in their various Normandy Campaign’s battles over this time between 06/June & the 21/August/1944 (In the 77-days of its total duration) in, around & immediately behind the landing beaches also both within the city & surrounding Caen areas & culminating at the joint-Allied action & the destruction of the bulk of the German Army in France at the “Falaise Pocket!” There has never been before or subsequently, such a high concentration, over such a restrictive area of engaged combatants anywhere, of both German & Allied, elite & regular standards, armoured, infantry or artillery, combat units (In particular, as within the contiguous three Anglo-Canadian sectors, running east to west, thus then making up ‘Sword,’ ‘Juno’ & ‘Gold’ Beaches respectively, & which had then constituted in total only about 30 to 35 miles of these original beach areas’ distances, & which had then also involved such a large range & numbers of deployed interactive combat operations & systems in WW2 or probably even since that time! These significant facts were subsequently concurred & acknowledged by both military historians & even immediately afterwards by the official Soviet Government’s military observers, who were then actually assigned to the Allied invasion Forces in the 1944 Normandy Campaign!

[@davidmcintyre998]

The Germans were never going to give up Caen without a fight because losing Caen meant losing Normandy. I once asked a veteran who fought there if he respected the Germans as brave soldiers and he replied no we thought they were idiots, they knew the war was lost and still kept fighting, a good point but is it not that strange thing called human nature.

[@tacfoley4443]

@2:28 - this is NOT an anti-tank gun, but a 25-pounder in the indirect fire role.

[@nicktrueman224]

You want it to go faster have a go yourself Ike. I like him but sometimes the sad reality is CIC do not know just how bad the conditions are for the poor guys getting heavy German armour thrown at them.

[@stevebowman421]

A German stated that the forces fronting the Britush and Canadians were the most concentrated of the war, the whole war.

[@gringo1723]

"A German" ? Rather a lazy effort when tossing unsubstantiated blah blah to support Your sympathies. Got some documentation to underwrite this, stevey?

[@dondouglass6415]

Montgomery was a bit of a narcissist but in the case of the Battle of Caen, at that point of the Normandy campaign, the British had to face, by far, the brunt of the hardest fighting, against the greatest number of German troops. I am actually a fan of Eisenhower.. but in the case of eastern push towards Caen, although Monty overestimated / underestimated how quickly the objective could be taken post D-Day zero hour... Eisenhour was talking out of his arse. Huzzah you Tommies...!! 😊

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The more I've researched, the less a fan of Eisenhower I have become. He was a fantastic Supreme Commander, man manager and politician but he was arrogant to think he could also take over Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all allied ground forces in September '44. No one man should have done both jobs together at the same time and Eisenhower's insistence on the broad front, wasting countless amounts of men and material in secondary campaigns such as the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace, prolonged the war and suffered unnecessary casualties. Everyone talks about Montgomery's ego but Eisenhower's ego was far bigger. Not only did Eisenhower want Montgomery's job of C-in-C of all allied ground forces but he later wanted Truman's job of President of the USA.

[@photoisca7386]

"Montgomery was a bit of a narcissist " a standard American insult. It seems non-British cannot say anything about the man without a prefacing slight. He didn't slap anybody or throw toys around when others were involved in operations.

[@derin111]

Anybody who has actually been to Caen, rather than just talking about it, after looking at diagrams on someone else’s KZbin video, would realise and appreciate just how big a place it really is. They would then appreciate that, unless totally unopposed, the ambition to supposedly secure a town that large by D+1 was unrealistic. It seems to me that someone as astute as Montgomery, is highly unlikely to have not known exactly this and not known exactly what he was doing by pinning the majority of his enemy’s forces against him at that point, whilst giving latitude to forces elsewhere to breakout against weaker enemy defences.

[@meht43-BringitBadger]

Surely the fact was, Caen was supposed to be taken on day three after D Day. Awfully researched video, typical Allied propaganda

[@gbentley8176]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes the Russians might not have had the dominance over Eastern Europe had Monty and the rest of the Command been allowed to get on with the job; such is war.

[@simonjones3863]

Good video. Well done. ++

[@user-bi9jj6gz1q]

A young Harold Rollins to the right of what's 'is name. Thx for the vid JJ. liked/subbed

[@michaelvalentine4867]

More should be written about this major battle it seems its been overlooked quite a bit ! !

[@ianfisher7360]

Patrick Delaforce served in 11th Armoured and has written several books each about British divisions during the war. Very good descriptions of these Normandy struggles.

[@jeffreywatson3534]

There is a reason the Empire ruled 1/4 of the worlds population.

[@tebo1958]

Hmmm... I'm not sure much of that 1/4 of the population would find that a good thing.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@tebo1958 Many say it was not a good thing...... while continuing to enjoy all the benefits it brought them 😂.

[@ALA-uv7jq]

The self serving empire that dissolved after WW2 when most dominion countries woke up that they were being ruled by an impotent Britain.

[@JohnBooth-bl3rh]

Under Queen Victoria it was 1/2 of the World’s population.

[@waynenash6008]

Funny how most people I've met in my life or seen on TV, who actually lived in the British empire believed it to be better than their countries present condition,

[@r100scammellpioneer9]

A superb and very well researched effort . So little is written about these battles upon which so much of the rest of the Allied war relied upon. My Dad was in the 44th Lowland Division of the 15th Scots and these battles were the hardest and the first battles that Division experienced. The Division's immense losses were made up by predominantly Londoners and East Enders who turned out to be as tough and courageous as the Scots. Thank you John Jones for this superb presentation...i wish my father was alive today to see and hear it. He never spoke of the war at all, such were the traumas.

[@TheGrowler55]

The Scots have always been fighters and the backbone of the British Army and long may it continue, but it really annoys me that the Yanks who did their bit I'm not denying that, but the British never ever get the recognition they deserve in fighting against Hitlers elite troops in the Battle of Normandy and beyond, just saying. 👍🇬🇧😎💙

[@mancroft]

Excellent vid, thank you. My Dad was in that. Royal Artillery.

[@gwine9087]

The Americans offerred up the Brits and Canadians so they could break out and then Eisenhower berates Montgomery? Nice.

[@user-jw4mw5gt7f]

Considering the terrain around Caen was mainly large fields instead of small plots surrounded by hedges around St Lo. Apples and oranges. Plus there were more than 2 german divisions facing the US troops. The Germans counter attacked south of St Lo with two divisions alone. Your history buff narrator isn't 100%. Educate yourself

[@gwine9087]

@@user-jw4mw5gt7f Six divisions against the Brits and Canadians. Is math a problem with you?

[@rogercude1459]

​@@user-jw4mw5gt7f the US forces weren't facing some of the best SS panzer divisions😂

[@user-jw4mw5gt7f]

@rogercude1459 nope they didn't, you're correct. And why was that? Because 99% of western Normandy was not suitable for tanks (Swamps, hedgerows, forests). Caen on the other hand was surrounded by huge wheat field quite suitable for tanks. So what's your point?? Or do you even have one?

[@doug6500]

@@user-jw4mw5gt7f Yeah, the point is the Septics faced SIGNIFICANTLY inferior forces to those faced by British Commonwealth forces yet have the absolute nerve to dare insult their effort as 'plodding'. You people do yourselves no favours. It was 21st Army Group that did the heavy lifting until well after Normandy.

[@samuelgordino]

I don't understand why it's called forgotten battle, it's a very famous battle. Even in american documentary's.

[@pshehan1]

Montgomery had said he would be in Paris in 90 days. The Germans stood in Normandy to be destroyed rather than make tactical withdrawals. The end result that Paris was liberated within Montgomery's time frame.

[@johndawes9337]

13 days ahead of schedule and with 25% less casualties than predicted

[@Templeborough]

True, but it was Americans and French who entered Paris. The British/Canadians stormed 250 miles across N. France into Belgium in a few weeks in a reverse blitzkrieg. Another British success that is also forgotten!

[@Immortal..]

The battle of Gazala was a bigger British tank battle

[@sobieski478]

I can hear Australia and London in your accent. Though I may be wrong! I loved your content. TY. Whether your a Cockney or an Aussie you are my Brother.

[@Oligodendrocyte139]

Sounds Aussie to me but I know what you mean 😊.

[@johntenthousand]

You have a good ear. I'm English but grew up in Australia.

[@andrewstrongman305]

I'm Aussie and I don't hear any trace of our accent.

[@Clive697]

The statement toward the end of the video claiming the Allies in the west faced as many or more German divisions than the Red Army faced than was misleading. The British may have faced several German divisions on a narrow front here but the figures for the Axis facing the Red Army are as follows: Army Group South - 32 divisions, Army Group Centre - 37 divisions & Army Group North - 33 divisions. This doesn't include reserve divisions or those on anti-partisan missions in the east. The Red army faced over 80% of Germany's divisions for most of WW2 and at the height of the fighting in the west/Italy still faced around two-thirds.

[@bwilliams463]

This is the first time I heard that Allied strategy actually intended to divert the bulk of the German armour away from the American sectors after Normandy. May I ask for a reading recommendation on the subject? Very interesting video. Well done.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@bwilliams463 Yeah "Breaking the Panzers" by Kevin Baverstock.

[@bwilliams463]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Thanks. I'll look for that. Haven't read a good armor book in a few years, actually.

[@randywise5241]

"The plan is the first casualty upon contact with the enemy".

[@Scimiter1948]

Correct, the plan may have been to take Caen on day one, unfortunately the Germans decided otherwise.

[@johndawes9337]

@@Scimiter1948 would you care to supply a reliable link stating Caen was a D Day objective.

[@user-uf3tk8ln1r]

well the yanks will not admit that with out us they would not have been so sucessfull as has been shown many times bailing them out at the battle of the bulge which they will not admit..

[@johndawes9337]

“In truth, the real Battle of the Bulge was won in the bulge itself, north of Bastogne, D’Este conceded-especially at St. Vith, where valiant units of the U.S. 7th Armored Division held out against overwhelming odds for eight days, as the two main panzer armies-the Sixth and Seventh Panzer Armies under Generals Sepp Dietrich and Hasso von Manteuffel-stormed through the Ardennes and Montgomery reorganized the American front to thwart them. Patton’s major contribution to the Battle of the Bulge was therefore not so much tactical as moral. He personally briefed the commanders of seven of his U.S. divisions and, as D’Este wrote, “made it a point to be seen” traveling on the icy highways in “an open armored jeep. … Daily he prowled the roads of the [Southern] Ardennes, sitting ramrod stiff, often with his arms folded, his face unsmiling. **More than once his face froze.**” - Montgomery: D-Day Commander (Military Profiles) by Nigel Hamilton

[@jamesleonard7439]

Trying to give you a like feller, you tube not responding.

[@DevilbyMoonlight]

We owe these fellows everything, its a great pity that so many of those that come to our country to reap the benefits do not respect them or their sacrifice, instead deface what monuments we have to respect them.

[@rileyernst9086]

The issue with pushing the Allies into the sea is the likes of the HMS Rodney were in the sea. And rapid firing 16 inch guns which are designed to hit a battleship sized target at long distance are not a good time.

[@nickgardner1507]

Tough fighting for sure, the Germans were very dug in in the Falais Pocket.

[@manfredgrieshaber8693]

The Tiger tanks had two disadvantages, their weight and their ernormous consumption of fuel. Most of the smaller brigdes in Normandy couldn't hold their heavy weight so their manoeuvrability was limited. Second, allied fighter bombers destroyed most of the german lorries which carried petrol cans so most of the Tiger tanks Germany lost had been destroyed by their own crews when the tanks ran out of fuel. And a huge amount of allied signals reported the advance of Tiger tanks resulted from a mix-up with german Panzer IV which had at a longer distance a similar shape as a Tiger tank but they were smaller. The Tiger tank was a highly sophisticated tank but it took the german industry more than four times the efforts to build a single Tiger than it took the allied industry to build one Sherman or a single Churchill tank. And, last but no least it took a lot of additional work to transport a Tiger tank by train as its chains were so wide the Tiger overlapped the train coaches. So, the operational chains had to be removed and smaller transportation chains were assembled to the tanks before driving them on the coaches. When the tanks arrived the whole chain-change-process had to be performed a second time.

[@gbentley8176]

Logistics as ever play the crucial role in winning or losing many battles. Observe the age old problems in Ukraine today. Heavy tanks feature too.

[@user-ny5yv9rt9s]

You have to wonder how Patton would have coped if he had to face a force the size of the one the British and Canadians were fighting

[@gbentley8176]

He would have had to use his revolver!!

[@johndawes9337]

just look at Metz and you will have your answer

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

He would have been stalled, just look at how far he got at Metz when he faced heavy German resistance and not an army in retreat.

[@user-ny5yv9rt9s]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- and all you here is, the British were so slow, they had no fighting spirit

[@Mfunky9869]

Sounds less like a tank battle and more like the German armour succumbing to Allied air superiority and artillery bombardment

[@user-og1ux8nr3i]

Pay attention

[@neilwilson5785]

These things all work together as a team in an organised army. The Germans had to use scarce resources to counter this attack.

[@grahambuckerfield4640]

@@neilwilson5785 which of course unlike the Allies, they could barely replace, including personnel, more conscripts in their teens even in SS Panzer Divisions by this stage if the war. This is a welcome counterpoint to an essentially Hollywood and some certain British historian’s narrative. The US forces encountered no Tigers in Normandy, though allied soldiers generally at longer ranges, mistook Panzer IVs for them. To be fair, not many Tigers even built, certainly compared to even tanks not pouring in huge numbers from the US, like the Churchill and Crownwell.

[@martinwilson3617]

It's called all arms warfare. Something that was stated several times that the British and Commonwealth forces couldn't do. British and Commonwealth forces destroyed the best of the German Armour in Normandy.

[@billballbuster7186]

However you look at the battle the Germans failed miserably, it cost them 2,400 tanks and Stugs. Some 100,000 German graves are recorded in Normandy with 300,000 wounded and POW.

[@davedowling8469]

At 6:34 you have an image of CanadianMajor David Currie winning the VC in St Lambert sur Dives. That has nothing to do with your subject video.

[@jamesellis2784]

Pic on intro make look etching .

[@the51project]

Captain Kirk's greatest test? KHAN !!! KHAN !!!! Khan!!! Khan!!!!

[@laverdajota8089]

DDay would have been a complete failure if it were not for the bravery and sacrifice of the Soviets.let’s not forget that .

[@ZXSPEX]

The Soviets would of failed if it was not for the brave sailors of the Royal Navy, US Navy, Royal Canadian Navy and the Merchant Navy in the Russian convoys who supplied millions of tons of supplies to keep the Soviets head above water! The trucks that drove the Soviet advance were mostly made in the USA! Let’s not forget that!

[@tanfosbery1153]

Yes Z, most people seem to forget this

[@gbentley8176]

@@ZXSPEX And overland deliveries via the Middle East corridor.

[@JohnBooth-bl3rh]

@@ZXSPEX Let’s not forget the sacrifice of the merchant navy. 40% casualty rate supplying The Soviets .

[@ZXSPEX]

@@JohnBooth-bl3rh I know it’s on the list I put in the original comment!

[@leondillon8723]

The 12th Waffen Schutz Staffel Division (Hitlerjugend) was on the German right flank. The 26th Grenadiers was a Germany Army Division. Was the 12th on the left flank a German Army Division?

[@martinables]

@leondillon8723.The 26th.Grenadiers you are referring to, are the 26th.SS Panzer-grenadier regiment which were part of the 12th.SS Hitlerjugend Division.

[@cat-im4vv]

The amount of nationalism in these comments here 😮...you allies can really thank one thing and that's total air superiority. For Germans the situation was totally impossible!

[@dominicconolly1219]

More tanks than 2nd battle of El Alamein?

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

El Alamein had around 1,576 tanks ( 547 German, 1,029 Allied) Caen had 1,775 ( 675 German, 1,100 Allied)

[@uingaeoc3905]

So the tank stats were British casualties 4,000 and 150 tanks and German 3,000 casualties and 126 tanks which the British C&E forces carried to victory, German exhaustion, at Caen. 16 Wehrmacht Divisions including 6 of Panzer at Western Front in Normandy and six Wehrmacht Divisions at Eastern front in the Belarussian 600 mile front. .

[@frankanderson5012]

What point are you exactly trying to make here? Your sentences are a little incoherent, just seem to be reeling off figures.

[@garrywynne1218]

I think his point is that the British frontage in Normandy was 60k and the East Frontage was 600 miles. Essentially the British and Canadians face more combat power in the form of tanks, armour , artillery and infantry on a narrower front. This prevented manoeuvre and options to Monty as the battlefield was compact and clogged with men and material on both sides. No mean achievement to breakout. That is not to say the Russians hadn’t done their big bit with Operation Bagration to support Overlord tying down masses of Axis Forces and Armour in the East.

[@uingaeoc3905]

@@frankanderson5012 The point is that the 'great battle' in the East was NOT as claimed. It is the Soviets who reel off figures "we lost millions so must be best'. why are you pretending this is the case for them but not us?

[@wolfganggugelweith8760]

Brave German soldiers!

[@josephberrie9550]

yes they were.... ss and ex guards of the dearh camps murdering women and children in the millions..

[@tupperlake100]

Rommel wanted the tanks stationed near the beaches. That way, they would have been able to attack the allied forces when the landings first started. Hitler prevented this. In addition Hitler was sleeping and no acton could be taken until he was later awaken. U.S. Naval guns were also responsible for destroying German armor.

[@johndawes9337]

U.S. Naval guns were also responsible for destroying German armour...HAHAHA so no other nation navy was there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings#:~:text=139%20ships%20%28eighty-five%20British%20and%20Dominion%2C%2040,US%2C%2010%20Free%20French%20and%207%20other%20Allied%29%3A enjoy the education

[@de7403]

The thing is the Germans often put themselves in strategically ridiculous situations that even their elite tactical prowess and equipment couldn't even overcome. The Atlantic Wall was one of those situations. Germany invading and capturing all that territory in the early stages of the war actually hurt them in the end. They couldn't defend all of it very well. Any German formations near the beaches would be destroyed. If they would have held them further back, they would be destroyed as well. Like I say Germans were very good at putting themselves in dumb situations. And nope that elite big ole Tiger tank couldn't get them out of trouble. I always found it fascinating how smart/stupid the Germans were during WW2. But I guess that's how crazy ideology dumbs down the brain.

[@Escapee5931]

So did the ships of all the other Allied navies in the Channel miss their targets, or were they holding some kind of regatta?

[@laurenshayton2399]

This can't be right Easy Company won the war and the British did nothing

[@tanfosbery1153]

Considering the amount of film footage of Americans on D-Day that was shown on TV, you would appear correct

[@davidwoody5228]

The Allied strategy was NOT to draw the armor to the British so the Americans could break out. That was Monty’s excuse for why the he couldn’t get his army out of the area around Caen. The terrain around Caen was tank country. Therefore the Germans massed their tanks there where they could be used The bocage where the Americans were was not tank country; it was a grinding infantry battle. Monty kept promising Ike he would break out. He never did. No offense to the brave Brits and Canadians who struggled bled and died there. Fine men who gave their all.

[@johndawes9337]

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.

[@andrewaustin6369]

Files released in the nineties say different during the dozens of planning and strategy meetings it was accepted by everyone that the British, commonwealth and polish forces would face the bulk of Germany's western army because much of them were based to the north of the gold, sword and Juno landing beaches (read up on Hitler's belief the invasion would be aimed at the pas de Calais). Also in those meetings Montgomery repeatedly stated he didn't think Caen would be taken on D-Day or within weeks given the German forces they would face. Clearly most of the senior american officers involved who agreed in those meetings that the British front would face the heaviest burden and that a lightening quick advance was not possible knew they would be dead by the time the truth came out as many of them after D-Day publicly criticised both the British and Commonwealth forces and their senior officers it was a disgusting stab in the back.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@davidwoody5228 "The Allied strategy was NOT to draw the armor to the British so the Americans could break out" Sorry but that's a lie. *Taken from Colonel Charles Perry Stacey's book - "The Victory Campaign" page 83* *"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."* Your claims are debunked.

[@martinables]

@davidwoody5228. Why then did Omar Bradley, a man who came to despise Bernard Montgomery, say this in his book? " The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded". From Omar Bradley's book A Soldier's Story.

[@ronniecoleman2342]

The British have no one to blame but themselves. If they had stood up to Hitler at Munich all this shit could have been avoided. Good work 👏

[@eric-wb7gj]

You could also add, the Germans themselves, French, Russians, Americans, Czechs, Poles etc etc. You'd probably be more accurate if you mentioned the Rhineland in 1936. Whilst the historical events may have been avoided, we'd have ended up with something else, although possibly less costly, due to Hitlers & Stalins actions at least. Central & Eastern Europe along with Baltics & Finland was an area with a multitude of interests & grievances.

[@Gungho1a]

Big misconception about the concept. It was never intended for the british to draw the germans from the US front, and in fact it didnt...the germans actually withdrew forces facing the brits and sent them to the US front. The british offensive was aimed at falaise, when it was held by the existing defense montgomery altered the plan to only take the high ground and push recon units to falaise, then gave up on that idea as well. Montgomery was playing a machiavelian game, producing army group orders for strategic attacks, then devolving planning down to corps level commanders and thereby absolving himself of responsibility for failure. The british and canadian attacks fall under one of two categories, either poorly implemented and supported strategic attacks that largely failed, or groping around chasing ground, with no actual follow through plan for once the ground was taken.

[@johndawes9337]

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

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Nope. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ql6Tcqurl7Z4ja8

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

@@johndawes9337 Caen, Anvil Of Victory. Like it or not.

[@walterm140]

This video is disgustingly inaccurate. Before OVERLORD Montgomery promised to drive deep into France. There was no plan to draw the German panzers. If there had been you British should cuss Montgomery every day.

[@johndawes9337]

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.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@walterm140 Stop LYING!!!!!!! *"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."*

[@albertwolanski7688]

The British came to Europe at the last stages of the war when the Germans were already beaten by the Russians. Yea, great victory 😫😫

[@johndawes9337]

uneducated drivel

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

@@johndawes9337 but very fashionable in these sinistard times.

[@minhthunguyendang9900]

@@johndawes9337

[@johndawes9337]

@@minhthunguyendang9900 Stalin’s personal diaries state that, if Normandy operations failed, he would have stopped the Red Army here on the Vistula river The reason for that was exhaustion. The Soviet Union was advancing in 1944, but the cost was becoming too great to bear. Stalin knew full well he might be able to push into Germany, but without Western allies taking the brunt of the remaining Wehrmacht elite in Normandy, he could never control much more than eastern Poland.

[@davidwoody5228]

Ok a slight mistake. On 600 miles of eastern front there were 9 German divisions????? How about 4 complete armies (one of which was a panzer army) and consisted of 2,250,000 men. Good grief. How wrong can you be? The UK/Canadians forces only faced a fraction of that number. Thank God for the Soviets. Without them facing the great majority of the German army, D-day would have been a dismal failure.

[@JohnSmith-un9jm]

Allied air power determined the outcome of this battle. If the germans had a viable air force, which they didn't, it would have been more difficult for the Brits to capture Caen.

[@redtobertshateshandles]

von Luck says the Tigers were upside down in bomb craters. All wiped out by a bombing raid.

[@malcolmyoung7866]

Correct.. have seen some photos can’t remember where but total destruction…

[@gringo1723]

Obviously scripted to display the Brit forces in the most positive manner possible... Never fails to amaze one how the need to preserve THE BRITISH EMPIRE MENTALITY persists long after all has been lost, with the exception of a few Islands. Enormous number of reports of the mediocrity of Monty, yet there are forever going to be staunch supporters of his methodology disregarding his shortcomings. While truly effective Brit leadership(for example, General William Slim) were often victimized by the rigid Old Boys leadership, Monty has remained the poster boy for the war effort. Arnhem need not be mentioned, much less... BREXIT. Hail Britannia? We R not amused. ♾

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

"Enormous number of reports of the mediocrity of Monty" Number of reports that you conveniently forgot were NEVER scrutinised enough and also were written post war AFTER THE EVENTS TOOK PLACE. Not exactly credible reports if they were wrote by people who weren't even involved in the war ie Max Hastings and Stephen Ambrose. Hollywood and books written by news paper journalists are not accurate whatsoever. Are we going to disregard counter evidence that contradicts all of these reports written by men who were there? Such as Canadian Colonel Charles Perry Stacey.

[@urbanredstarski]

The Canadians saved your butts, admit it😅

[@johntenthousand]

We give the Canadian First Army their own videos kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYS7notpeZV2opo kzbin.info/www/bejne/mny7g56morGFodU

[@gordonhall9871]

not good tactics used by Montgomery

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Why not? He got through Normandy against far stronger German forces quicker than the Americans got through the Hurtgen Forest, Lorraine and Alsace.

[@robertpatrick3350]

Why? please provide the basis for your critique.

[@cricketerfrench7501]

@@robertpatrick3350 Do not feed the troll

[@johndawes9337]

tactics good enough to finish the campaign 13 days ahead of schedule

[@martinwilson3617]

It was supposed to take 90 days to liberate Paris,it was done on DAY 77.

[@anthony1636]

Yes it took longer than expected. But then the whole concept was to draw the German armoured divisions away from the American lines. And in this it succeeded. As we have read so many times how the Americans especially Patton. Derided Montgomery. When in fact Montgomery and the Commonwealth soldiers especially the Canadians. Not only had the harder course to follow. But were confronted by Armoured divisions far in excess to the what confronted Patton's Army group. Eisenhower was in fact not very effective. And was prone to listen to his underlings. And his attitude towards Montgomery changed under pressure from his top Generals. Who were more concerned about the Glory of reaching Paris first. And just as a reminder Montgomery had achieved more Victories before and after D-Day than any of the American Generals in North Africa and Europe.