The most underrated Panzer? - Panzer I

What was the most underrated German Panzer during the Second World War? It was clearly not the Königstiger, which was likely the most overrated nor the Panzer IV, which is considered the workhorse of the German Armored Forces. The Tiger and the Panther are also quite well represented all over the place. Similarly, the Panzer III gets its fair share of representation as well. Which leaves us with the Panzerkampfwagen I & II.
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum Munster (Germany). Be sure to check out their channel here: / daspanzermuseum
Videos referred to that did could not be linked via cards:
NATO Counter Guide: • [Military 101] NATO Un...
German Army Expansion 1933-1939: • German Army Expansion ...
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» redbubble - www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
» SOURCES «
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: Eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2016.
Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, Hilary Louis: PANZER TRACTS No.1-1 Panzerkampfwagen I. Kleintraktor to Ausf.B. Panzer Tracts: Maryland, USA, 2002.
Jentz, Thomas L.; Doyle, Hilary Louis: PANZER TRACTS No.1-2 Panzerkampfwagen I. Kl.Pz.Bf.Wg. to VK 18.01. Panzer Tracts: Maryland, USA, 2002
Müller, Rolf-Dieter (Hrsg.); Volkmann, Hans-Erich (Hrsg.): Die Wehrmacht - Mythos und Realität. R. Oldenbourg Verlag: München, 1999.
Wettstein, Adrian E.: Die Wehrmacht im Stadtkampf 1939-1943. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, 2014.
Pahl, Magnus: Panzertruppen der Legion Condor, in: Militärgeschichte 1/2012
Absolon, Rudolf: Die Wehrmacht im Dritten Reich. Band IV, 5. Februar 1938 bis 31. August 1939
#MilitaryHistory #Panzer #tanks

[@alexbeau348]

german spy in England went to a bar -Two martini please - Martini dry? - Martini zwei !

[@cloroxbleach9222]

I get it.

[@Sammael66685]

It's that kind of "bad" joke that always makes you laugh, no matter why.

[@AHappyCub]

@@Sammael66685 true

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

Alex Beau in English the dry comes before the martini. Good joke though.

[@storm_raider-]

What!? I don’t get it.

[@Mr_Bunk]

A big, bulletproof box armed with twin machine-guns going almost 20mph is absolutely terrifying from the perspective of the majority of soldiers, who were infantrymen. Why people are only just realising this is beyond me.

[@Mr_Bunk]

As incredible as the Semple is, it doesn’t really fit the ‘almost 20mph’ part.

[@markky3050]

I still stand by the Pz.II over the Pz.I, a 20mm cannon is far more to be scared of as both infantry and armoured cars, which were used in masses.

[@jabloko992]

Which also explains the phenomena of 'anti-tank rifles' which were useless against the most common tanks of the later stages of the war (43+)

[@fulcrum2951]

I'd argue an anti tank rifle is still suited against tanks, but not in a 'direct' role as used in the early phases in the war Optics, tracks, the commander can still be a viable target

[@jabloko992]

​@@fulcrum2951 Or you could just carry a rocket launcher of sorts and actually kill the bloody things.

[@Bisexual_Sovereign]

“Sacrificed Armour for Speed” *Battlecruisers Intensifies*

[@Electricfox]

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody tanks today!"

[@christianhoffmann8607]

Jacky Fisher: "Speed for Armour? Where is the problem?"

[@moomoohh1230]

HMS hood

[@rfletch62]

M-551 Sheridan

[@Schnittertm1]

Well, we did it with the Panzer I, we did it again with the Leopard 1. If we have another tank with 1 in its designation, we might do the same thing again.

[@FloppyCDdrive]

Fast and Führious haha wie nice

[@itzmattiah5508]

I died of laught there

[@hiphip4808]

Well then...

[@Fajnybobr]

Niemand: Deutschland in 1940: S C H N E L L

[@baronvonluchz5874]

Ich bin Geschwindigkeit

[@milodecker7826]

lol

[@adamsvoboda9753]

Also panzer 38(t) is underrated. They were a great addition to German panzers at Poland and France. Better gun than panzer III at that time and great mobility.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yes, although in Poland they only had very few, for France and Soviet Union, they were more important. Here you can see the data for Poland: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWKlnn2VfKtsbdk

[@khalee95]

Those were captured Czech tanks, but there wasn't enough of them to be used all over Europe.

[@adamsvoboda9753]

Military History Visualized Thank you. Thanks for great content.

[@warplane13]

@Ulf Knudsen Did you watch the video?

[@tedarcher9120]

@Ulf Knudsen it was the best tank in 1939 though

[@PereMersenne]

"One tank in an unexpected place is worth 100 tanks where they are expected." - MAJ K J Macksey - "Panzer Division: The Mailed Fist"

[@NeuKrofta]

Makes me think of the M10. Not even a tank either

[@VersusARCH]

As long as they could be supplied there...

[@josephvalvano829]

Love the old Ballentine War books, still have my complete set.

[@cloroxbleach9222]

yes let's our tanks in trees, comrade.

[@lesaustion]

@@NeuKrofta by definition, m10s a tank...but many people don't consider it a tank, but definition it is

[@tankolad]

Gotta say, that's a nice thumbnail. It doesn't just look good, but it's educational as well.

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

That thumbnail could be a nice shirt... or a poster. Just sayin'

[@redactedz6146]

I want an inage of it tbh haha

[@zabintasrik4488]

I like it, although after realising the panther isn't there,it bothers me a bit now

[@aprofile2857]

@@zabintasrik4488 you just ended the thumbnails whole career

[@cpmenninga]

Zabin Tasrik it’s there, he accidentally put it behind the panzer VII.

[@mensch1066]

I must admit to being a little concerned once I realized that this video was focused on the Panzer I. However, you effectively made your point that this tank is unjustly underrated given the circumstances. I agree with this, especially because anyone who studies the Spanish Civil War has found multiple sources ragging on the Republicans for being unorganized and mostly inept. This is mostly true, however people just assume that the Nationalists were great because they had German and Italian help. No one considers what the Nationalist training and doctrine were like in situ. Yet the Republicans had the help of Soviets who found the command of Republican military structures exasperating, especially the Anarchist forces - thus the May Days where the Spanish Republic with Communist backing crushed the Anarchists in 1937. So it makes sense that the Panzer I was squandered by Franco's forces. That said, I would absolutely love a video devoted to the Panzer II in the future. I know basically nothing about the strategic and tactical context in which it was used.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Panzer II not on my current shortlist, also the Panzer Museum only have parts of it :( so I still need to get some footage. Ideally this will be solved soon :)

[@eevee1023]

Military History Visualized I would also like to see a videio about the pz 2

[@LukeBunyip]

I'd love a video on the Pz III. Just saying.

[@martindesombre7817]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized yes it would be really interesting, I heard that it was gradually removed from the frontlines, but a 20mm autocannon is still good for infantry support in the late war as well no ? Or was it its protection that wasn't enough at the end of the war ?

[@genericpersonx333]

@@martindesombre7817 The Germans didn't think the Mk II useless for combat (they made great use of it for reconnaissance purposes on all fronts) but rather that they found the chassis was more useful in other roles. So, whenever a Mk II needed a refurbishment or major repair, they would ship it back to the factory and convert them into vehicles like the Wespe 105mm Self-Propelled Artillery. They did that with many of their early tanks, especially after 1941. In other words, the Germans would generally never discard a tank, merely repurpose the chassis when it became more useful in other roles than in its original form.

[@andrews_lego_tanks_and_more]

I think the problem is people assume it to be fighting other tanks, it was never designed too. The Panzer 1 is an infantry fighter, meant to fight the enemy units in a combat zone. it was never intended to take on other vehicles. the intent was to have the armored unit have some anti tank capable vehicles that could be used if an armored threat arose, but in standard combat, the Panzer 1 and 2 were intended to suppress the infantry. I personally love the Panzer 1 and 2, each with a good combat record and service life.

[@selfdo]

That was also US Army armored doctrine. The much-maligned Grant and Sherman tanks were intended to penetrate into the enemy rear and shoot up command posts, supply depots, and other "soft targets", but not necessarily "Duke it out" with enemy armor. That was supposed to be the job of the Tank Destroyer command, and their TDs were specifically designed for seeking out and destroying German armor. This all assumed that the "Jerries" would use their armor the same as we intended to. But the damned nazi jerks wouldn't "Cooperate!". By the time the US Army was in the thick of the fight, Germany was on the defensive, had few too many tanks, and not enough fuel for what they did have. Hence, they kept their armor well to the rear, to be fired up and engage only to counter enemy armored thrusts, a sort of armored "fire brigade". Hence the Shermans were the machines most often slugging it out with German armor, and the American TDs were in the rear, without their original job to do, being improvised as artillery, which their guns were not intended to perform. This experience caused an entire rethinking of American armor post-war, with tank destroyers as a concept being abandoned altogether, and tank types being designed as "light", or "medium", or "heavy" GUN tanks during the 1950s, until even that was discarded, first during the Army's "Pentomic" fad, then with the upgrading of the M48s with 105mm guns, resulting in the M60 Patton as the first designated MBT in US service.

[@stephanfritz2933]

@@selfdo The TDs were a defensive unit, intended to serve instead of towed AT guns (though they never replaced them completely, I'd recommend kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZnSaYeLlK-jpas for a quite detailed rundown) The reason the TDs ended up as you described it was that, being a defensive weapon, they lacked other uses when the U.S. were on the offensive the whole time. The TDs were not intended to spearhead an attack, TD doctrine actually forbade a use in this role. They weren't built for this role any way, what with them lacking any meaningful armor. The M4 was indeed intended to work with the infantry in offensive operations, but the Shermans were of course expected to be the main anti-tank weapons for the infantry they accompanied. And they were designed for that. When introduced the M4 could stand up to anything the U.S. army knew they could encounter on the battlefield, in 1941 it was actually superior to all german tanks. Shermans didn't fare well against heavy tanks but besting medium tanks (and any other weapon usually employed in a defensive line) was of course the whole point of having a heavy tank. Compared to it's "real" counterpart, the Pz. IV Shermans held up until the end of the war, the 76mm variants also were a match for the panther. The US Army lacked a heavy tank of their own but that was hardly the Sherman's fault.

[@combatantezoteric2965]

"Meant to fight the enemy units in a combat zone". The problem is that even submachine guns could penetrate its armor...

[@arthas640]

yeah, its more of a WW1 cavalry tank, designed to be a light fast infantry killer that exploits holes in enemy defences, goes around flanks, and sneaks through gaps made by other offensive forces. Like how the Brits had big heavy tanks to actually punch holes int he defences, then light fast tanks to exploit those holes.

[@donjones4719]

@@combatantezoteric2965 Source? According to the video, standard infantry rifles could not penetrate the armor, unless supplied with armor-piercing ammo. SMGs are less powerful than infantry rifles, and I've never heard of armor piercing ammo for one.

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

Soviet Womble spotted at 8:09 ?!

[@tedarcher9120]

yep that's a reaccuring meme

[@threebog]

@@tedarcher9120 what is the background to the soviet womble meme?

[@Seb-Storm]

@@tedarcher9120 yes please tells us

[@tedarcher9120]

@@Seb-Storm are you the same seb that sounds exactly like Womble?

[@Seb-Storm]

@@tedarcher9120 I'm afraid not. Sorry to disappoint you

[@kilijanek]

I like that graphic about "You have not seen tank in action" with SovietWomble :D Niecely done!

[@heliohae9064]

thought i was the only one who noticed it

[@djscottdog1]

I love the symble for allied incapabilitys is a smashed tea cup and a snapped bagett

[@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry]

if it was american what it would showed? an broken hamburger?

[@robhallie]

About 10:30

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Important additional information the "training tank" issue, I asked Dr. Pöhlmann (the leading German expert on the Panzerwaffe) for his assessment. He noted that the Panzer I was intended for combat, yet that after the experience in Spain 1937 it was rather apparent that the tank was lack-luster and likely not suited for this role. Additionally, the accuracy of the term "training tank" depends on the definition of what one does understand in terms of "training". The must crucial training role the Panzer I fulfilled was training in large formations for operations. So, it was NOT a "training tank intended solely for training", yet one could argue it was a "training tank that should also serve in a combat role".

[@errantexodus]

Military History Visualized easily taken out by the bob semple tank

[@mihaiserafim]

Thank you for the video and for this clarification. It is a shame that such mistakes exist in this much explored subject.

[@fanta4897]

Ok, so how about this question: which of the early war tanks(let's limit that to every tank in german possesion before Tiger I or Panther) was the most effective? Was it even german tank that was the most effective in german army (remember that Germany had a lot of tanks from Czechoslovakia, and I'd assume that they'd also have relatively large number of captured tanks from France and other defeated countries)?

[@SirSilicon]

For me the question comes up, if the lack of well armed/armored panzers in the late 1930s made it necessary for the germans to develop combined arms tactics/strategies.

[@Gulaschkoenig]

Thanks for this great vid and the additional information. I was about to make a remark, that training in this context does not only mean individual or tank team training, but also the handling on larger formations and combined arms warfare.

[@kl-nc4gy]

Please, please make a shirt and possibly poster based on the intro graphic/thumbnail with all the Panzers coloured different like that. That'd look awesome. Thanks!

[@luckylokee]

kl 87 That would be awesome!!

[@rays5073]

Yessss

[@leemon2677]

Omg yessss

[@Realkeepa-et9vo]

He just did

[@Calvert1212]

And some cool text underneath

[@Sofus.]

would have guessed T 38

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

not really an "original" Panzer

[@Sofus.]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized "original" No, but it was heavily used by Nazi Germany modifications were made under German leadership, and the country and producers were occupied by Nazi Germany.

[@alexandershorse9021]

@@Sofus. there is probably a good a video for the future on German use of captured armaments and production capacity. It has been said that German panzer forces would not have succeeded in France in 40 without the Czech tanks. Rommel's division had mainly were Czech tanks for example. They were also important in Russia in 41 along with French equipment, particularly transport.

[@RemusKingOfRome]

NO! T35, land battleship with it's escort destroyers - T 38s :D

[@mwanderson667]

I think the fact that he didn't even mention the 38 in the video shows how underrated it is :-)

[@TheLPN05Fan]

"Fast&Führious Rearmament"... I actually already laughed tears...

[@descartes2404]

Well the Pz I is a fast tank. And its can mow down enemy infantry furiously with those two twin MG.

[@seanc.5310]

_"Fast & Führious Rearmament"_ Nice!😂

[@3gunslingers]

I always understood the term "training tank" for the Panzer not as training tank for the individual soldiers, but as training tank for the whole army. Thank you for supporting my point here.

[@Rubashow]

As the head of the Departement of Redudancy Departement I take objection with your criticism and I also protest it.

[@Deridus]

Your excessive repetitive use of redundancy and objections are superflous and demand to be vigorously questioned.

[@psikogeek]

I award you the Commendation of Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. Well done, Rubashow.

[@BlacksmithTim]

You give away the secret of your video successes: combined arms. Which, in a sense is a combination of perspective, humility, clarity and insight. I greatly appreciate how you step back and "fit the piece into the historical puzzle" so that what you invite me to examine is more clearly presented. Many thanks.

[@GirlThatLovesCannons]

this is my first time watching a video from you Military History and honestly I’m quite impressed at the work you’ve put in this video and seemingly every other video just by looking at them, hats off to you.

[@neilwilson5785]

There are loads of really great videos here. Still an underrated channel.

[@imnotusingmyrealname4566]

In addition to these facts, the transmission probably lasted longer than on any other German tank.

[@GrasshopperKelly]

The Panzer 2 and 3 series proved to require the least maintenance, relying very much on preventative maintenance. Permitting parts to last quite long, and over all prove very robust vehicals. Even against the African desert and heat. Only the Stewart with the large engine intake fan proved more resistant to the Desert.

[@mikec8086]

@Carnivorus I mean if one of you guys has a sword and the other has a broken rifle, well the sword is going to win against the rifleman.

[@mikec8086]

@Carnivorus in the number games of war that doesn't matter. If you can equip an army with swords and the enemy only can get 3 guys with rifles with 2 always being in repair depots. The sword army will win especially since the rifle will likely fail within heavy use. There's no use in the war by having a super tank being repaired in the rear.

[@mikec8086]

@Carnivorus well there are major problems with how Germany counted kills, they didn't confirm them, multiple tanks claimed the same kill. The wehrmachts intelligence force even agreed to reduce the kill counts by 30%-50% due to this inflation. The other fact is that they didn't count a tiger with a blown off track or broken down tranny. They only counted a tiger that was burnt out as a loss. Thus this resulted in a disproportionate kill and loss rstio. The allies counted any tank not available in the front as a loss since it couldn't do anything. The fremde heere ost, the intelligence servcie in the eastern front conducted an investigation and concluded that the tigers kill to loss ratio was about 2.009:1 or 1.435:1.

[@PobortzaPl]

@Carnivorus German anti tank guns, Stuka divers (since around '43 most of them use 37 mm autocannons) and... Stugs (mostly 3, some 4, rarely IV/70). And most importantly: allied or Soviet tank knocked out of action doesn't mean that all of its crew got killed and tank is either quickly replaced or even repaired.

[@lukeprivette3831]

You killed me with the "fast and Fuhrious" description

[@frederickthegreatpodcast382]

The Bob Semple tank! The greatest tank of all time!

[@flakmag1004]

the abrams spontaneously combusts within 13,000km range of the bob semple tank

[@noelwallinuppsala]

Did you know the Bob semple can survive a direct hit from a tzar bomb with no damage att all

[@kesfitzgerald1084]

Strangely, I wargame with a chap who is a published author ie a world expert, on the Semple "Tank".

[@Rolo_DS2]

Tank you

[@Rolo_DS2]

But I'm not tank

[@crimsonpanther9996]

You never disappoint with your uploads MHV!

[@ArtoriusBravo]

"Sadly, back then spawn killing was not in fashion". *Cries in Warthunder*

[@dlifedt]

Really Loved the visualization you did in the museum scene - was very effective in conveying a difficult concept to grasp on paper (we’re so used to reading stats).

[@adriancartwright3294]

Love your information packed vids, good to see the true stats of armaments from back then, keep up the good work.

[@HerrGausF]

I'd love you see make a video on the 38(t) and its substantial role in German armoured operations in 1939-45. Few people understand the importance of this Czech design which was kept in production in some form or another until after WW2.

[@selfdo]

It was the basis of the Hetzer, which the Czech kept in production into the early 1950s and sold many to Switzerland, whom dubbed it the Panzerjager G-13. This beast served in the Swiss Army until 1973.

[@Castragroup]

it had no role past 1940. the only reason it was used at all is because the werhmacht was under developed and was desperate for tanks to make a stand against the invading troops of the bef and french armies

[@HerrGausF]

Besides your ludicrous distortion of historical facts I'd like to point out that the 38(t) was kept in production and frontline service until 1942, at which point it was switched over to Marder production and later Jagdpanzer 38, which still used the same suspension, engine and drivetrain, arguably the most important parts of a tank after the main armament.

[@eduardotrillaud696]

bossalanator as some said before, the 38(t) was used throughout all conflict, in a variety of roles, and serve to the basis of many vehicles

[@HYDRAdude]

So if the Panzer I is underrated then does that mean that tankettes were actually brilliant? In terms of armament and functionality the Panzer I was just an oversized tankette.

[@therockphonian5323]

This was fascinating and entertaining. A similar summary of the Panzer II would be great to see!

[@flounder31]

Excellent, well-researched argument. Interesting and amusing presentation. Thanks for posting!

[@podemosurss8316]

3:47 Better said, most Spanish soldiers from both sides had never even seen a tank prior to the SCW. Spain had only two light armored battalions and a few experimental tanks, and they were yet to develop a tank doctrine... which they did during the war.

[@alexandershorse9021]

A controversial choice but well argued, as always. I was expecting the Panzer III which was the workhorse of the Panzer waffe in the years of triumph; its operational life extended by upgrades, superior tactics and being just a solid aĺl around package. Or the Panzer IV, the workhorse of the Panzer divisions whose operational life was extended through upgrades to the end of the war. The late war heavy tanks which many admire could not stem the tide of war. Have you read Len Deighton's excellent book Blitzkrieg? He makes similar arguments, for example that the Panzer I and II were outclassed by French tanks but fear of tanks, mass deployment and the superior German combined arms tactics made these little tanks very effective in 39/40. He also has excellent graphics like yours.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Those animations are a new nice touch. And a most informative video. Context is important as always.

[@joestendel1111]

Very cool video, never woulda thought about the panzer one like that

[@_lime.]

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department, we welcome you! This is gold.

[@petrophaga8523]

"likely not seen a Tank in Action before" - picture of Sovietwomble... i see what you did there ;)

[@edlubitz2968]

your docs are great..keep it up

[@tsjoencinema]

I love this content. I hope you make more in the future.

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

That thumbnail though! I want that on a shirt haha.

[@williamparks5331]

Your American English is so good. I mean "department of redundancy department". I've been using that expression for years.

[@biz4twobiz463]

Great topic!! Really enjoyed ur video. Merci

[@sullivannix4509]

Great video. Learned a lot

[@ragnarokgzlr8522]

So what I understand is: subscribe to your second channel.

[@bananabong4911]

6:23 Of course it makes sense to build a training tank of a training tank. Where else would you teach your soldiers how to train on a training tank?

[@rburns531]

Well done Sir! On a scale of 1 to 10 an 11! Thank You! Please continue!

[@ranhat2]

This is an impressive, outstanding piece of research and presentation. Or should I say ANOTHER.... You make it clear that a stampede of buzzing, sting bees, i.e., Pz 1's, would be formidable in the field.

[@rafaeltait1203]

"Fast & Führious Rearmament" great humor as always!

[@narpman7638]

I would subscribe to the idea that the Panzer 1 was a fantastic infantry support tank and, if combined with Panzer III, could be a formidable opponent against even heavier French fortifications. I will admit, I often overlooked the Panzer 1 and the Mark IV Light Tank (Great Britain), and Military History Visualized makes a fantastic point.

[@anthonyhargis6855]

Well reasoned and thought out. Very educational.

[@VonRammsteyn]

Awesome video! Just when i think i know a lot about panzers... This is why i never say i know a lot about anything... Thanks 4 share it!

[@podemosurss8316]

7:28 Well, if you're Spanish you use "cojones": preparing a Molotov cockhtail and a hand grenade, entrenching, waiting until it's stuck in the mud and then throwing the cockhtail into the engine and the grenade on the caterpillars. Not kidding, a Republican Spanish infantry squad managed to knock out of action 5 Panzer I during a single action of the Battle of Madrid using this method.

[@Electricfox]

"We made use of "petrol bombs" roughly as follows: take a 2lb glass jam jar. Fill with petrol. Take a heavy curtain, half a blanket, or some other heavy material. Wrap this over the mouth of the jar, tie it round the neck with string, leave the ends of the material hanging free. When you want to use it have somebody standing by with a light [i.e., a source of ignition]. Put a corner of the material down in front of you, turn the bottle over so that petrol soaks out round the mouth of the bottle and drips on to this corner of the material. Turn the bottle right way up again, hold it in your right hand, most of the blanket bunched beneath the bottle, with your left hand take the blanket near the corner that is wetted with petrol. Wait for your tank. When near enough, your pal [or comrade-in-arms] lights the petrol soaked corner of the blanket. Throw the bottle and blanket as soon as this corner is flaring. (You cannot throw it far.) See that it drops in front of the tank. The blanket should catch in the tracks or in a cog-wheel, or wind itself round an axle. The bottle will smash, but the petrol should soak the blanket well enough to make a really healthy fire which will burn the rubber wheels on which the tank track runs, set fire to the carburetor or frizzle the crew. Do not play with these things. They are highly dangerous."

[@selfdo]

Although most historian credit the term "Molotov Cocktail" to Finnish soldiers whom, after getting some "liquid courage" by emptying a bottle of Finlandia, would fill the bottle with gasoline, stuff a gas-soaked rag in the neck, and then, when the Soviet tanks approached, light it and throw in on the engine deck. There is evidence that Franco's Nationalist also used these improvised weapons against Soviet armor, however, IDK that they used the MC term, as Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov wasn't well known outside the Soviet Union until the 1939 pact with VonRibbentrop and the Nazis. It would be no surprise that the Repubicannos used them as well!

[@podemosurss8316]

@@selfdo Similar hand-made explosives were used by both sides in the SCW. This is from a report during the battle for Madrid (1936).

[@kognak6640]

@@selfdo Actually Finns had industrial grade Molotov Cocktails made by state's alcohol company. It was mixture of kerosene, ethanol and tar. A integrated storm match functioned as ignition device. They made almost a half million bottles during the war. Soviets even tried to bomb the factory.

[@adalet127]

The lost underrated tank in history is no other than... ... the Bob Semple

[@greenmountainhistory7335]

The only reason the Japanese didn’t invade New Zealand is because they heard about the Bob Semple

[@donjones4719]

Oddly enough, in terms of this video, the Bob Semple is underrated, in a way similar to the Panzer I: Can't be taken out by an infantryman's rifle, can take out a lot of infantrymen. So, very intimidating to the average soldier. And the Japanese soldier was even less familiar with mechanical vehicles than a German. And the Bob Semple significantly outgunned the Panzer I. Oh, I'm realistic, the Bob S. was quite slow and who knows how mechanically reliable. But it's food for thought.

[@fulcrum2951]

I remembered that there's plans to install a 37mm gun onto a bob semple Making what an already powerful vehicle *insert word here*

[@TopHatTITAN]

Kinda off topic, but i just love the images of the Panzer I next to other bigger tanks. The Panzer is just so smol, i love it

[@anonviewerciv]

7:20 The footage really adds to the points being laid out.

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

Wish everybody´s content stayed as balanced as your channel, wish the whole internet community (even myself at times) could take an example as to how these midget-documentaries (cause that they are) come in to being, and are treated by the utmost respect. It´s no longer content, or chewing what others said before you, but analyzing it with specific set of logical principles you clearly studied in heart and mind. Even if sometimes I want to pick up my Mauser 98k, and shoot a blank over your head, hehe :-) But that´s only when it comes down U-Boote and RADAR, and trust me, just about everybody get´s a few depthcharges from me in that area, especially if we look at the later war years. It´s becoming ever harder to separate mythology from reality, and it´s not going to get more easy as our *living* primary sources of this Era are slowly withering away... I know, because I lost a primary source in the WW2 Radar Program as a friend of many years just a while ago. Yet you do a very good job at extracting Reality from Mythology. Truly enjoy this content, it´s refreshing and well-balanced, and an inspiration for trying to do sometimes along these lines myself. The problem being my interests are very broadband, but I´d have to distill down to a handful of subjects, since I learned one cannot remember every little detail about everything. The human memory is finite, even if the philosophy and methodology by which you process the raw information/sources are a rather ´simple´ set of rules and extrapolations... And even these are often not enough! Regards, Thomas PS. Quite literally *all* WW2 content on KZbin pisses me off because of Mythology, mistakes, shallow research and parroting clearly, if not directly from other people/sources outright. And I don´t mean quotes, I mean just basically distilling a war movie into one´s vision and ´reality´ of that time-period.

[@familiehagen7116]

"Fast and Führious"! €5,- in die Wortspielkasse!!! $6,25 into the punny bank!!!

[@janstan8407]

I enjoy your videos very much because you talk about subjects that are not "sensational". Could you possibly do one on anti-tank rifles and related infantry weapons other than panzerfaust.

[@extraterrestrialfascisti7625]

Superb analysis!!!

[@LionofCaliban]

It has to be the first model, just by the video title. The simple fact is that the Panzer 1 is the foundation of the later doctrine, Panzer arm of the service. It showed what needed to be worked and what didn't. It also showed what had to be improved. You need to learn, what you need to learn. You only do that by actually doing things. They were getting out and doing things.

[@melon5674]

@Carnivorus The video isn't telling us that the Panzer I was a *good* tank, it's telling us that it was an important one. Do you seriously think that the only thing that matters is how the tank does on the battlefield? What about its contribution to doctrine and future development? Does that not matter in the slightest nowadays?

[@LionofCaliban]

​@Carnivorus In this case, I have to say, not necessarily. You don't just arrive at a point of having fully formed and functional doctrine, units, formations, without learning a lot on the way. This was the test bed, a platform which provided them the ability to learn those lessons and develop out the ideas. Now is it a good tank to deal with other tanks? Hardly. Unless maybe, you catch the other tankers out in the open and get between them and their tanks. On the other hand, of being a fully mobile, protected, fighting vehicle that provided a means, practical means, to develop the doctrine that would allow them to occupy just about all of mainland Europe and take significant Russia, it is important. Especially I would argue in the integration of radio and the doctrine of using that in battlefield operations, conditions.

[@LionofCaliban]

​@Carnivorus Absolutely, people contribute to doctrine, people write the damned stuff. However, no matter how good the person writing it, the doctrine at the end of the day needs to be testable and produce an effective war fighting capable force. To do so without testing, reviewing that doctrine is not a good idea. The fact is that this vehicle, the Panzer 1, was that platform that allowed the doctrine to mature with important life lessons. That helped write later doctrine and design later vehicles. If not provide some specifications for later vehicles. Especially in the case of information and communication management. This vehicle allowed them to work on and develop both. The numerous exercises, engagements, all add up here. Armoured vehicle, military vehicle design is not a short process, we're talking five years to decades worth of reviews, prototyping, determining capabilities expected, minimum required. The Panzer 1, I would argue directly shaped the later Panzers, in general. The Panzer 2 was a direct 'we need a proper tank to kill other tanks', later 3, then 4, are a progression. As needs changed, so do did the tanks and the doctrine underlying the use of each particular vehicle. You don't get a Panzer 2, Panzer 3, Panzer 4, Tiger, Panther, without the Panzer 1. You simply can't. Even with the lessons, writings of WW1.

[@LionofCaliban]

@Carnivorus That's not the point I was making and to claim it was is extremely misleading. Development of an item like a tank is a process and where you start, matters. For the Germans it was the Panzer 1. Other countries had items like the Vickers, or locally produced variants. It's the process of, I want to emphasize and that you can't have the later, latter, without the former. It's a long process and it has good routes and dead ends. See the TOG II. I think it's easy to focus on the later, warfighitng vehicles, without being aware of the process that lead to their creation. You don't build without a foundation and that foundation is extremely important.

[@melon5674]

@Carnivorus At no point did I bash the battle-proven tanks, and I never suggested that the Panzer I was a better tank than them - I didn't even suggest that it was more important than them. I simply pointed out that there is more to a tank than how it did on the battlefield. It's true that people, not tanks, develop doctrine, but theoretical knowledge can only take you so far - you need practical experience to refine it. The Panzer I may not have been a good tank, but it was there.

[@DominatorLegend]

I just don't understand why we jumped into conclusions so quickly with the Panzer I. We might have as well tossed it into the sea and say it's a bad tank because it can't float.

[@claykalmar8131]

This was a real life example of the important difference between the quality of a tool, and the quality of a master craftsman. Great video!

[@HipsterBot2000]

3:24 i thought there was a stain on my screen lol... really cool video though. Love all panzers

[@Carlos-zv2tf]

MHV on first channel: The most underrated Panzer? MHV 1s later on second channel: the Pz. 1.

[@the_bane_of_all_anti_furry]

man wtf you expect?

[@thearisen7301]

I would love for this to be a series. The most underrated tank from each country and also the most overrated.

[@thethirdman225]

Pretty clear what the most overrated was...

[@bbcmotd]

You should totally make a video on the evolution of German tanks from Pz I to king Tiger and the thought behind each new model

[@useallyquiet]

The tumbnail design is awsome.

[@JosephSarabia]

The Soviet Womble reference! :D

[@joshhoward5187]

I saw it!

[@danielkelly1335]

How about the Czech 35 and 38 they are good tanks for there time and generally forgotten

[@yeboxxxchannel2505]

I mean, they had massive production and sales for every country. Example: Germany and Sweden

[@chrissanchez9935]

Nice analysis.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Tanks for your video, well thought out and informative as usual. Two questions: -I have read that a design flaw of the panzer I was that the rear bogie (driving?) wheel was on the ground, giving unwanted problems with the track. -Also, I read that the British (pre war), had an "export" tank that they sold to other countries and that Germany was one of the customers. Either of these assertions true to your knowledge? If I may change the subject. I want to suggest that an armored vehicle (AV) is either a tank or an SP gun and that that distinction is dependent on usage not design. Further, this usage directly affects its Power and its Force. So I contend that an AV is an SP gun when it's movement is channeled (as in streets or in support of a straight forward infantry attack), thus making its Force and local relatively predictable and that its Power is predicated narrowly on gun and armor, with the former being the most important of the two. Let me throw in here that tanks shouldn't fight tanks, they are too expensive for that usage. And I know there is a great deal to be said about that but it's not possible on this Sunday evening. Power is more important than force. An AV is a tank when used in the manner of 19th century hussars i.e. moving fast behind lines, arriving unexpectedly, applying its Force to soft targets; threatening or destroying supply depots, communication nodes and last, though far from least, causing such panic that transformation of the entire battle area is forced on the enemy, rumours flying faster than radio transmissions that "we are about to be cut off, surrounded". Enemy effectiveness withers at an ever increasing tempo, an army is killed by panic zeroing out Power and Force with relatively little fighting. Now that's Power! To test my assertion I will posit that the American WWII M-20 armored car would have been better a vehicle than the panzers used in the 1940s romp to the French coast. It was more reliable (as wheeled vehicles usually are), faster, needed less logistic support (more miles to gallon) and had a sufficient gun (shrugs) and armor. Not leaving out of course the need for the same hard driving German commanders. Probably what I have written is now so obvious that no one will disagree, which would be distressing in that I would be deprived of some delicious back-and-forth. LOL Oh, and one other thing occurred to me as I typed away. I wonder if anyone would agree that France lost the battles of 1940 during the 1917 mutinies?

[@SAarumDoK]

Before watching i would say the Pz. II and Pz 38t.

[@Edbi18]

38(same for 35) is originaly Czech, so it wasnt included

[@johnbane6199]

Panzer I wasnť even a tank .. just a tankette

[@mihaiserafim]

I tend to agree with you, but people and words and concepts are not always a good mix so let it be this time. It's not worth it.

[@francoandres3850]

Why?

[@neilwilson5785]

Nowadays we refer to vehicles mainly according to,their role, rather that appearance. The Pz1 was employed as a tank, in armored units, in 1939-40. For example, the Sherman Firefly can be called a tank, and sure as heck looks like one, but if you read about the way they were used in combat, they were tank destroyers. Not confusing at all.

[@francoandres3850]

I mean the Panzer I was clearly a light tank, not a tankette. Even if it was armed like one. We could call the FT17 a tankette if we followed that logic. I find amusing how Italian CV-33s were deployed as if they were light tanks despite being tankettes. Entire armored units were equipped with them.

[@HYDRAdude]

an oversized tankette

[@Tonixxy]

Great video

[@julianfitz806]

cool, that you put in all the links

[@butterlerpunch]

when you read the text "the most panzerlied tank"

[@Tutel0093]

The most underrated Panzer? the Stugs ones.

[@Nikola95inYT]

They already are well known as being the best tank destroyers in the war, they are not underrated.

[@pepela8214]

@@Nikola95inYT r/WOOSH

[@GodsChosen69]

hetzers

[@arthas640]

They were all around great tanks, did alot of fighting, but are virtually unheard of outside of diehard history nerds and a few RTS gamers.

[@jvtagle]

Arthas Menethil and Girls und Panzer fans... 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@Cheezymuffin.]

When I play men of war assault squad 2, I often attack positions with infantry combined with armored cars and panzer 1 and 2s. They often destroy the enemies squads early game and can cause a massive collapse of their front lines. I can also remember a time I was defending and I had a panzer 1 dug in that managed to kill 86 infantry men before getting knocked out. Quite useful little buggers.

[@oberstul1941]

And the little guy is so cute with its locomotive-type tracks near the rear (sorry, I don't know the proper term, it's that piece of metal over the 2nd and 3rd wheels from the back). Also, I would've guessed the 35t/38t. Also, also - cheers!

[@mikeltelleria1831]

TIK should see this, lets see if he still thinks light soviet tanks were useless in 1941. If you only have a rifle and you are in an open field, they are pretty damn scary.

[@TheArakan94]

they were useless because Soviets didn't use them as Germans did and Germans didn't have their infantry alone without support.. Soviet light tanks become way less scary when your support units can (and will) take them out before they can even fire at you ;)

[@mikeltelleria1831]

Sometimes. The Eastern Front was vast and many other times artillery or air support wasn't readily available.

[@Loose89]

Mikel Telleria and yet the German were able to deal with them because the Soviets used them without support and most lacked radios to communicate between themselves to be able to effectively coordinate competently, which TIK has said.

[@TheSuperMisterious98]

we could say that the panzer I is a good IFV

[@OriginalBongoliath]

It would have to carry troops. It didn't carry troops.

[@StumpyDaPaladin]

Your thinking about StuG's arent you. Where on that tank would you fit an infantry squad? let alone a Platoon.

[@TheSuperMisterious98]

an IFV (infantry fighting veichle) is designed to fight infantry. an APC (armored personal carrier) is designed to carry troops

[@theguyeverybodylikes9667]

The majority of the time i play in men of war assault squad 2 as germany i like to use the panzer I as an early game infantry support or scouting vehicle, and it hasn't performed bad up to now. Its always managed to take out numerous soldiers and when kept out of sight from AT weapons and other tanks it can perform very well in defensive roles as well

[@facundogimenez7529]

I really like the Pz 1, nice video

[@a05odst62]

The most underrated panzer isnt a panzer, it's the Sturmgeshutz 3

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

na, way too many StuG fans out there.

[@ryanmartin4732]

Military History Visualized Gotta live the Stug life

[@rohampasha9667]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized we didn't choose our love she chose us

[@selfdo]

On a "bang for the deutschemark (buck)" basis, the StuG III was probably the best German AFV of the war.

[@LuigianoMariano]

Panzer I: *I AM THE FATHER OF ALL PANZERS.*

[@selfdo]

More like "Der Grossvater!". The WWI-era A7V would be the "Uber-Grossvater" of all Panzers!

[@arthas640]

@@selfdo WW1 and the interwar period had some of the funniest tank designs and the A7V always reminded me of a random storage tank that someone just slapped some guns and treads on before sending out to the battlefield.

[@MothaLuva]

Douglas Self It’s called Urgroßvater if you mean great grandfather...

[@someinsignificantguy4433]

But he looks like a little child

[@Ammageddon89]

Fast and Führious is nice! Didn't know that one yet :P also I smiled when you said "all the otters" Haha :) Schönen Gruß, mach weiter so :)

[@markusedele5610]

Actually in Spain, the 'Gruppe Drohne' experimented a bit regarding the Problem with the T26. They used special armour-piercing Machinegun-Ammo with which they were able to penetrate the T26. They had to come within a range of under 100m though. The spanish tankers then modified some Pzkpfw I with 20mm-Breda-Guns, but the germans refused it, since the Pzkpfw II was about to get produced

[@sheriffhotdog1443]

How to confuse an American "Give me an m1" How to confuse a German "I like the Panzer"

[@thehumanoddity]

The fuck do you mean by 'M1'.

[@kaletovhangar]

@@thehumanoddity M1 was designation of many types of weapons and soldier's gear, like M1 Garand rifle,M1 Thompson SMG,M1 helmet,M1 armored car,M1 carabine,M1 Abrams tank etc.

[@thehumanoddity]

@@kaletovhangar Oh, that, I didn't think about that. Yeah, we like the M-series designation for some reason.

[@matthewfilter7586]

Late r/woosh

[@davidaitchison8791]

This is absurd. The Mk 1 was nothing more than a tankette. It may well have been effective in a ww1 context but by the 1930s it was rendered totally obsolete by the universal adoption of anti tank weaponry. Any anti tank rifle or gun of the late interwar period could incapacitate a Mk 1, which had even less armour protection than a ww 1 era Renault. Still worse, any encounter between a Mk 1 and any allied tank you care to mention that mounted something other than a MG as a main gun could result in but one outcome, a dead Mk 1. The Germans were painfully aware that with the European wide adoption of the 37 mm anti tank gun in the late 1930s that the Mk 1 was obsolete. That they managed to work around this glaring limitation is to their credit, but it doesn't change the fact that the tank itself was in every respect, outclassed by the opposition. The Germans succeeded in the opening campaigns in ww2 despite the Mk1, not because of it.

[@jrd33]

I agree. The author makes a decent case but I don't believe it holds up to analysis. The Pz. 1 was basically obsolete at the start of WW2. It may have played a role in the development of German armoured tactics but this was not due to any strength of the Pz. 1, it was just all the Germans had available. Any tank would have served just as well. If anything, it taught the Germans how to win despite having inferior tanks, but that can hardly be considered a plus point for the poor Pz. 1!

[@alastair9446]

A russian anti tank gun could penetrate a Panzer 2, Panzer 3, Panzer 4 so what's your point?

[@dgerdi]

Very nice video. I like your symbols a lot. There is a Mission in „Call of Duty 2“ in which you have to kill a bunch of Panzer 1 or Panzer 2 (I am not sure) as infantry. Not an easy task and almost impossible without fog-granates. So I learned not to underestimate the Pz1 and Pz2. But against other tanks I made a few bad experiences with Pz2 against allied Tanks like Mathilda and Char (devastating), so in strategic operations I would favor Pz3.

[@LEMMYKISGOD]

Great information here. Always enjoy WW2 History 🤔

[@TheGreatWar]

Aren't they all overrated?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well, depends on who you ask.

[@podemosurss8316]

Certainly they are when compared to the A7V...

[@a_random_dane7492]

Its german Engineering

[@sleepyrobstetson4757]

compared to what? At the time, there was nothing close to comparison.

[@user-xq5og9lt8p]

Not like I'm claiming anything, but Bob Semple tank was never ever defeated by Panzerwaffe in an open combat. Just saying.

[@RocketHarry865]

Because the Bob Semple tank never saw combat of any sort. The Bob Semple would have been absolutely worthless in a real fight and would have ended up like the Bonnie and Clyde death car

[@jurgisneverdauskis536]

@@RocketHarry865 The Bob Semple would have crushed you, you puny mortal.

[@ur2c8]

I would describe it as an interim design, a stopgap intended for temporary use until something better or more suitable could be found.

[@troyhidvegi]

Most adroit segway to the commercial I've heard in a while made be chuckle. wunderbarer Filmemacher

[@flakmag1004]

00:05 *every wheraboo ever* : REEEEEEEEEEEEEE KING TIGER BEST TANK IT TOOK 42069 SHERMANS AND T34 TO KILL A KING TIGER REEEEEEEE

[@etwas013]

Oh look, a sheep ran out of the shed.

[@mandernachluca3774]

Oh god, an idiot....

[@scipioafricanus6417]

You could take out a king tiger with a katana....

[@mandernachluca3774]

@@scipioafricanus6417 You forgot "made out of special 6 billion times folded holy nippon steal" XD.

[@flakmag1004]

well, a tiger's transmission broke in the time it took you write this comment, In all seriousness, where did you get that statistic from please? the myth of taking " 4, 8 or 11 tanks to kill a tiger" has been debunked many times over again, it mattered about which tank shot first. The first tank to shoot would usually win the fight. Also no, performance no.... the germans had a mentality of putting on as much armour and the biggest gun possible without any real consideration for the rest...

[@joshuaramirez5399]

The most underrated panzer is ur mom

[@thunderring8056]

Not true, terrible armour!

[@bisus]

POPOPOOOOO

[@thekiminthenorth4668]

@Dalle Smalhals Other kid's mother are always softer than my mother

[@Seraphil1]

Isn't this a compliment??

[@scotthammond3230]

Well she does have big guns...

[@RasPutintheGreat]

Thank you for this.