The Genius Tactic that Left German Panzer Completely Useless

Рет қаралды 904,606

4 ай бұрын

At the beginning of World War 2, when Germans arrived in France after taking over Poland, the Wehrmacht’s Panzer divisions shook the world to its core.
The panzer division was much more than just a force of massed tanks; it was a combined arms team centered around the tank. In a Life magazine article published in 1940, an accurate depiction of the shockingly successful German army in the offense described them as [QUOTE]:
“It is not one single weapon, and it's not even a new kind of warfare. It is simply a more ingenious development and use of every kind of modern weapon that has hitherto been seen.”
Faced with this unprecedented threat, the United States Army found itself in a state of palpable urgency. A New doctrine was needed and fast. In late 1941, the War Department inaugurated a unique military concept: The tank destroyer.
By emphasizing rapid response, potent firepower, and mobility over heavy armor, the program aimed to cultivate a specialized force that could quickly engage and neutralize advancing enemy tanks, preventing them from outmaneuvering or overwhelming U.S. defenses.
Would this audacious tank destroyer doctrine be the linchpin that finally halted the German Panzer Juggernaut, or had the U.S. gambled its military future on a strategy few understood?
-
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -

Пікірлер: 755

@oledahammer8393 4 ай бұрын

My Uncle was killed in action in the battle of El Guettar. He was 19 years old, 47th Infantry, 9th Division. May he rest in eternal peace and I will be forever grateful for his sacrifice for the life I now lead.

@OIFIIIOIF-VET 4 ай бұрын

Oh? Who you voting for in 2024?

@Guido_XL 4 ай бұрын

Every lost life in a conflict is a loss that should have been prevented. But, it is a delusion to assume that the fight of WWII was about anybody's "way of life" from an American perspective. The Third Reich was a response to the detriment of the aftermath of WWI. It was not intended to "conquer the world". That is the echo of the anti-German propaganda, which especially disgruntled exile Germans promulgated among the Western press and politically influential spheres. F.D. Roosevelt meddled decisively in the 1930's to provoke a war against the Third Reich, as he considered this a "gangster" country. He tried to evade any restraint that Congress and US law had erected to uphold non-interventionist policy. Hitler felt this pressure that was exerted towards British and French politicians and diplomats. Chamberlain tried to buy time to strengthen British forces, before any hostility with Germany would emerge, and therefore, he tried to extend agreements with Hitler. His appeasement policy was mostly criticized within US circles, with ties into British and French decision makers. The anti-appeasement cabal held a firm ground within the British Foreign Office, which undermined Chamberlain's decisions all the time. FDR disliked Chamberlain as an allegedly "weak" opponent to Germany. Contrary to popular belief, the relationship between Britain and the US was not all too friendly in the 1930's. As many other nations, Britain and France were divided about the views on the Third Reich. Some believed that cooperation was necessary, whereas others highly disproved of Hitler and thought that a war threat would make the regime tumble, when the German military and the people would feel misdirected by Hitler's decisions. Also FDR believed that threatening with war in Europe could smash the Third Reich from the inside. And, if that would not happen, an actual war would have to start as soon as possible, before the German army would have gained strength to a level in which it could defeat the French army (which pressured against Germany ever since anyway). The American meddling in the advent of WWII remains mostly hidden from public attention, for understandable reasons. Once fully disclosed, these facts would paint a totally different picture of this main conflict of the 20th century. Every lost life, certainly from the results of a political conflict, is one too many. But, cementing a myth about historical events is not going to help us building a more peaceful and prosperous future. We need to face the facts and learn from them, so that we can communicate and collaborate on an honest foundation.

@queensapphire7717 4 ай бұрын

A bonanama

@official_commanderhale965 3 ай бұрын

@@OIFIIIOIF-VET TF DOES THAT MATTER?

@independentthinker8930 3 ай бұрын

My Dad was a M4 tanker in the 4th Armored

@U.S._Army_Retired 4 ай бұрын

Stop with the fake thumbnails already! The tank on the thumbnail is a T28/T95 SuperHeavy Tank prototype, only 2 were made. One had a turret. The other one, shown, was a tank destroyer set up. It was on display at Fort Knox and sat outside the entrance to the building I worked in. Saw it every day for over a year. The T28 and T95 are the same vehicle. KZbin has a video, search "t28/t95 super heavy tank" and watch it.

@Dreachon 4 ай бұрын

It never had a turret

@g.w.customcreations3534 4 ай бұрын

I do believe it was actually designed as an assault gun, for taking on breakthrough duties at large fortifications, neither as a tank, nor as an anti-tank gun.

@Chris-mh3vf 4 ай бұрын

The thumbnails bear no relation to the words, the video clips bear no relation to the words, all standard on dark docs 😂

@jakeh6988 4 ай бұрын

So annoying. Becoming a crap channel

@scottdarden9965 4 ай бұрын

Although most of us have a basic understanding of history we would probably not have the slightest idea of what kind of tank is in the thumbnail so there is no reason to give this young man any trouble about his thumbnail.

@johnjcoxiii9401 3 ай бұрын

Why the HELL do all of you Historical Documentarians insist on using the most obnoxious noises (music?) in the background? YOU are the only people who are keeping alive History. It certainly isn't taught in the schools and colleges these days. This information is IMPORTANT and doesn't need to be overwhelmed by or distracted by unnecessary NOISE! For the record, I am 86 and lived through WWII while my much older cousins (32 of them) represented the Family in all branches of the military and all theaters of the war.

@bluecollar58 3 ай бұрын

Yes I agree , I really don’t know what they are thinking. Either you are interested in this type of content or you’re not. How in the world dose background music make these more attractive ?

@Conserpov 3 ай бұрын

Calling this a "documentary" is a stretch.

@davidelliott5843 3 ай бұрын

It’s all we have. Definitely better without the backing track.

@louisvillaescusa 3 ай бұрын

What is wrong with you people? Do you have some kind of hyper sensitive hearing that the rest of us don't have? I didn't find the video noises distracting in the least. But then again, I'm not a spoiled snowflake who is in danger of soiling his diaper.

@bluecollar58 3 ай бұрын

@@louisvillaescusa , whats wrong with us ? Look at your comment. What is wrong with you ?

@davidelliott5843 3 ай бұрын

The British lost a huge amount of equipment at Dunkirk. Much of it was warmed-over WW1 artillery but regardless they had to quickly rebuild their shocks. The Royal Ordnance Factory Quick-Firing 57mm Six Pounder anti tank gun was particularly successful (also built under licence in USA as the 57mm M1A1 or M1A2 AT gun). They were in use throughout WW2. One gun even stopped two (genuine) Tiger 1 tanks. Panzer III was no match for this weapon.

@petert9097 2 ай бұрын

The de Havilland Mosquito Mk.XVIII carried a Six Pounder for use against U-boats. It had an automatic loading system developed by the Molins cigarette machine company. One Mk.XVIII used its 57 mm gun to shoot down a Junkers Ju 88 by blowing one of its engines off.

@johnburns4017 5 күн бұрын

Only one third of the British army was in France. Over a third of equipment was taken back to England. Much left in France was older of WW1 heritage. By September all equipment was replaced with new and more modern equipment.

@timothyseabrook1584 2 күн бұрын

my grandfather was with the BEF in france and escsped st funkirk he later hook part in butma and borneo campaigns. I Fid sn SAS jungle training course with the Ghurkas i in Brunei part of what was Borneo in 1981. I was based in Hong Kong and volunteered ( nutty I know, but it was great!).

@johnburns4017 2 күн бұрын

@@timothyseabrook1584 In English please.

@12345NoNamesLeft 4 ай бұрын

You could leave that music out. It doesn't fit.

@warpedbeyondhelp 3 ай бұрын

The incongruous and annoying music was a mistake and detracts from an otherwise excellent video.

@borissukoi564 3 ай бұрын

here i am trying to pause videos in my tabs and unable to stop the rock music lol what was he thinking?

@paul-iv1bs 3 ай бұрын

what a load

@danreich4320 3 ай бұрын

Nonsensical. If you must play music play something from the early 1940s.

@stevecarter9027 2 ай бұрын

I am a musician………and the music is wrong:)

@jamesg2382 3 ай бұрын

The heavy metal music is a distraction rather than a compliment to your very fine videos.

@clintwhittiker1221 3 ай бұрын

I say it's a compliment, since it sounds like Iron Maidens "Aces High" a bit.

@jimmyjohnson2480 3 ай бұрын

@@clintwhittiker1221 I agree...the music is kinda cool. I would like to know who and what it is.

@Wheeler590 3 ай бұрын

I like it!

@minot.8931 3 ай бұрын

Sucks.

@alienchow. 3 ай бұрын

Yeah, lay off the metal as background music. Unless you want to use some Portal.

@marksaunderson3042 Ай бұрын

Get rid of the music.

@Kaemmer23 4 ай бұрын

This music doesn’t bring ww2 vibes at all. It’s such obnoxious music I can’t even finish the video despite my curiosity

@cryptickcryptick2241 3 ай бұрын

Tank destroyers were a very interesting combination of economy and firepower. If you have to take on another tank, a tanks is generally always the best option. If you have to take on a large number of tanks, throughout an entire war tank destroyers have some unique advantages. First, they are lighter, easier to move, and cheaper to produce. A tank destroyer only cost about half of what a tank does. So would you prefer 100 tanks, or 200 tank destroyers? Generally, the first tank to fire has better chance of winning any encounter. In a war, one can strategically, use both. Tanks can be the cutting edge. Tank destroyers can be positioned in defensive places, behind hills and fortifications where the thinner steel plating is not a problem. Tank destroyers can also move across muddy fields, damaged bridges, and can at times move faster. It is a physical thing, they use the same engine and are not burdened down with all the weight. This means that even though a tank, might be the preferred option, the better options is the one that can get there. In a situations where you may have a bridge of limited quality, sending over the lighter tanks so troop have some heavy fire support is better than sending over a heavy tank and destroying the bridge.

@cryptickcryptick2241 3 ай бұрын

To be clear, in the back lines, 200 tanks destroyers are better than 100 tanks. One is able to have multiple guns in towns, and also have multiple angles on the enemy. In part, war is a numbers thing. Many men, would prefer to ride in a tank destoyer, than walk. Manpower was not the limiting factor, having the right weapons was. On the ground troops are useful and still needed. But they also need support. Shipping in and landing vehicles via landing craft, also makes a difference.

@BojanPeric-kq9et Ай бұрын

Tanks destroyer always had mower powerful gun, thus they could engage targets from longer distance.

@archereegmb8032 3 ай бұрын

The M4 Sherman was the best Allied tank killer, once it was mounted with the British 76.2mm anti tank gun, and named the Firefly.

@user-zo4nk4uq7z 3 ай бұрын

Don't you mean 17 Pounder gun

@lazynow1 3 ай бұрын

@@user-zo4nk4uq7z Jesus, guy the size of the gun was 76.2 mm.........

@kelvinjolley6264 Ай бұрын

As long as it was not hit with a 88 ap shell.

@lazynow1 Ай бұрын

truth be told that there was not that much difference between the American 76 mm and British 76.2 mm as far as performance...the American 76 mm was on many Tank Destroyers and no one really seemed to complain too much about their performance against German armor....

@user-tt6il2up4o 17 күн бұрын

@@lazynow1most,y because Germany considered us army inferior to other allied countries. It’s why us never came up against tigers etc, they only put these yuits up against Russian, British Canadian etc NOT inferior us units.

@4OHz 3 ай бұрын

First time the machine has dropped me into your long-form vid or is this a new approach? I enjoyed it - you give us a novel approach and depth - thanks again

@stephentorri1233 4 ай бұрын

Background music was distracting

@WilliamDudley 4 ай бұрын

My father was in the 821st TD. They landed at D-day + 20, with half tracks and towed cannons. The self propelled guns (M18 etc) weren't issued until months later.

@johnathanh2660 Ай бұрын

Yep. The TD doctrine predated 1941 and a 'TD' wasn't an M10/M18. Or rather is was ANY equipment that could be used to destroy tanks. So the purpose of the TB doctrine was to rush to 'breakthroughs', and cut off the attack, using TDs. These could be either tracked or towed guns. Ultimately the TD doctrine was discarded because it was too difficult to 'match up' TDs with German armour attacks with Shermans attacking, and then 'bumping into# enemy armour. So instead they moved into 'general medium tank'.

@dougmoore4326 4 ай бұрын

At 4:06, while the narrator is talking about the superior German armor, the clip shows a German officer riding in a captured British Bren gun carrier sporting US markings… lol

@davidgifford8112 3 ай бұрын

Both US and British Empire vehicles used a white star identifiers during the liberation of Western Europe.

@johntrottier1162 4 ай бұрын

Your report makes it sound as if the tank destroyer concept was a success. But the fact is that the army disbanded the tank destroyer command and all tank destroyer units after the war. The TDs of WW2 spent far more time acting as mobile artillery and infantry support units that they ever did in the role their doctrine called for.

@JTA1961 4 ай бұрын

Well said

@shaunholmes9900 4 ай бұрын

That what Germany wanted the Tank destroyer's to do. Look at at the early Stugs and Panzer 4's infantry support. Later they they added Tank Destroyers to help them deal with bunkers, buildings and tanks. So it was success on german side. Germany did have other units like Jagd Panther that were dedicated tank hunters. American and British used them to flank and infantry support. Tanks were designed to be more mobile and make the gaps. Tank destroyer's defensive and infantry support. Guess you kinda don't get concept of TD's.

@DuneRunnerEnterprises 4 ай бұрын

@@shaunholmes9900 And, it's probably worth to mention the Red Army's tank destroyers, especially SU&ISU lines.

@mChrest05 4 ай бұрын

This channel is all about his rapid dialogue quoted from US Army BS featuring video that has no relation to the dialogue.

@rwhunt99 4 ай бұрын

That is because they were too late to be used where they were needed the most - in the blitzkrieg war in Europe.

@Bojangles6 4 ай бұрын

7:00- what crew served weapon is that?

@1RiderPale 3 ай бұрын

Informative video as always! Loved the footage from Camp Hood! I spent some time there when it was Fort Hood years later. First Team!

@DavidWilliams-qr5yj 3 ай бұрын

Found your back ground music counter Productive, I couldn't finish the video.

@MrSychnant 4 ай бұрын

So what has the picture of the "mystery" tank advertising the video got to do with the article?

@peterbellini6102 2 күн бұрын

One of my fave WWII movies was "Sahara" with Bogie as an M-3 tank leader. Good stuff

@hicknopunk 4 ай бұрын

I don't envy the mechanics who had to work on this beast in the field.

@jwhite146 4 ай бұрын

like the pictures of M4 firing as artillery but the tank shown at the beginning was to be used to break the West Wall. the sad thing is that they looked like a tank and therefore were used as a tank.

@ricashbringer9866 3 ай бұрын

The M3 Lee was not a tank destroyer. It was a stopgap tank put into service until a turret to handle a 75mm barrel was designed and put into production.

@muskokamike127 3 ай бұрын

I know right? and did you notice that "during the invasion of France" he showed germans walking by burned out shermans? lol I'll take "things that didn't happen for $100 alex".

@WelshRabbit 3 ай бұрын

@@muskokamike127 Agreed! I sometimes think our narrator takes some interesting clips and randomly shuffles the order and stitches them together without regard to his presentation (and adds that obnoxious background music).

@davidelliott5843 3 ай бұрын

Sherman could not survive a German 88mm AP round but neither could any German tanks. The Sherman won by its high reliability and sheer numbers being delivered.

@Mokimanify 3 ай бұрын

A tank destroyer is defined how the asset is utilized. Towed AT guns were integral to TD units, though designed before the TD docterine was concieved. The author made an error and confused the M3 Lee with the M3 GMC which used the 75mm M1897 3.0 inch Field Gun ..

@muskokamike127 3 ай бұрын

@@Mokimanify Yeah, I didn't think the Lee was designated as a tank destroyer but wasn't going to make a big deal out of it.

@clonetrooper9158 4 ай бұрын

I have some suggestions that I think would be pretty neat if you would do it for the next videos. Also I love watching all of your channels. I got in to watch them when I went on a learning spree on the F4U Corsair. 1) R3 T20 FA-HS 2) OTO R3 T106 3) L3/33 CC

@paullevins5448 4 ай бұрын

Stop with the click bait pictures. The click bait picture is the tortoise . A combined American and British idea. To smash its way though the sigfreed line. You pod casters and your click bait you are not fooling every bod!

@etherealbolweevil6268 2 ай бұрын

Also, the meaning and correct usage of 'decimate'.

@davidkermes376 Ай бұрын

@@etherealbolweevil6268 i wish people would use "devastate" instead of "decimate." more appropriate.

@feedingravens 2 ай бұрын

I do not get the reasoning when what archive material is used. The connection with the text is almost random. What has the production of Sd.Kfz. 231/232 8-wheel armoured cars to do with US tank destroyers? But that was the most interesting part, as I had not seen those yet.

@blackcountryme 4 ай бұрын

The music ruins it and I'm a metalhead...

@kerrybassett4468 4 ай бұрын

I've commented on this in previous videos, makes it hard to follow dialog.

@FernandoTRA 4 ай бұрын

Agree completely that the music does not help but hinder these videos.

@pedda66 4 ай бұрын

Gave upp after 6 minutes. Sad!

@outlet6989 4 ай бұрын

KZbin has a great feature. It's the CC button. They should have an NM button. NM stands for No Music. Knowing KZbin, NM would only be available for use by Premium members.

@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle 4 ай бұрын

The vehicle in the thumbnail is not in the video

@alexander1485 4 ай бұрын

One still exists out of 2.

@charlessorrell1226 3 ай бұрын

One of my uncles was an M18 Hellcat mechanic at the Battle of the Bulge

@HeinzGuderian_ 4 ай бұрын

Read "The Panzer Killers". It's about MajGen Maurice Rose and how he used tank destroyers to smash German armour formations. He was a fighting General, always up front and engaging the enemy with small arms himself. He was finally killed by a Tiger commander while speaking to him.

@HellYeahImIrish 3 ай бұрын

I know what small arms means but whenever i read it. I think of someone with trex arms smacking something.

@HeinzGuderian_ 3 ай бұрын

@@HellYeahImIrish I see you've met my Korean buddy. LOL

@patrickshaw8595 3 ай бұрын

General Rose was the highest ranking officer killed in the American Army in WWII. He has a Wikipedia entry but he doesn't get near the present-day fame that he is owed. He was was not surrendering he was going to kill the commander of the tank that smashed his jeep !

@michaelshore2300 3 ай бұрын

Where did this happen ???

@WelshRabbit 3 ай бұрын

Herr Generaloberst Guderian, definitely!!! Gen. Bolger's book is a great -- and essential read. He also pulls no punches in his characterizations of good, not so good, and positively lousy generals in WW2 ETO. I wish I'd had someone like Gen. Bolger as my PMS when I was doing my ROTC bit instead of lack-luster ticket punchers.

@billmcmullan6142 3 ай бұрын

Brutal music choice

@oldredcoonhound2182 4 ай бұрын

No background sound, better than garbage background sound

@kingjellybean9795 4 ай бұрын

The world caters to you doesn't it?

@Bravosierra6 4 ай бұрын

yes, very annoying noise! And yes, the world caters to me too -with my EXIT button.

@kcstafford2784 3 ай бұрын

there you go with the back ground music again?????i fail to see whu its nessassarry

@jamesdebbie2249 Ай бұрын

I actually liked the music. It kind of felt like watching one of Popo Medic's videos. Cool.

@dmchodge 3 ай бұрын

Got to love the complete disconnection between the pictures and the words. Knocked out Shermans backing up talk of the 1940 Blitzkrieg are just one of the highlights.

@lolzdatguy4987 3 ай бұрын

As a person who just listens to the video I see this as an absolute win.

@muskokamike127 3 ай бұрын

I know right? I caught that as well.....

@brucewilliams1892 3 ай бұрын

At 4:08 the Sherman, with the box for the radio, is wrong for the time. Is it equipped with the 17-pound gun? Stock film error?

@Filip_Wessman 4 ай бұрын

Great vid but the metal noise in the background is annoying.

@bwilliams463 2 ай бұрын

What is that at 13:30? It kinda looks like a Bob Semple, out on field trials.

@williamevans6959 4 ай бұрын

I agree the music doesn't do anything to me for the programming. It's annoying. Makes me want to shut it off and unsubscribe to it

@HardLuckHayes 4 ай бұрын

Are they playing August Burns Red in the background? It's very similar to their sound

@davidniemi4051 4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the video, the background music is a little loud for me and distracting.

@alandavis9644 2 ай бұрын

My uncle, Tom Braidwood, was a gunner on a M 18 and was the first to arrive in Bastogne to meet Jochin Pipers King Tigers, he smoked 3 of 4 Tigers, turning the armored offensive around for a day. I heard the story from him and his driver, Johnny Maurine before they passed. They told me about driving north through the snow clearing each village as they went north. Amazing the amount of kilking they did and it was like just another day. Wow, if they could tell their story to all of you.

@bwilliams463 2 ай бұрын

You have to keep your memory of their stories alive, because you may be the only one who can. My grandfather was a Sherman tank commander on Iwo Jima, and he apparently told me stories he never told his children. The current generations are growing up with less and less knowledge of WW2, which is too important to all our lives to allow to be forgotten.

@alandavis9644 2 ай бұрын

@@bwilliams463 agree

@monty5692 2 ай бұрын

I agree with @james2382, to me the heavy metal background music is distracting rather than complimentary and it's not like it's contemporary in any way ...!

@tomasdunn4847 Ай бұрын

M18 had great success at Arracort i am really surprised that wasn't mentioned

@andrewwinter7843 4 ай бұрын

Patton, per the biography of him written by Ladislas Farago, Patton always thought the best tanke destoryer was another tank. He never really believed in the Tank destroyer Doctrine because it was by nature defensive in Nature. Patton knew enought about tank warfare to realize that to beat tanks you out manuevered them and took the fight to their rear areas. As he say in the movie. "I don't want any messages saying, "we are holding our ground". The only thing we are holding onto is the enemy. Were going to hold by the nose and kick him the ass! We're going to kick the hell out of him, .. All... The... TIme! And were are going to go through him like CRAP through a GOOSE!" There is no real place for a defensive-self-propelled anti tank gun in that line of thinking, no matter how fast it is. What made the M18 valuable was that speed. But It's best use was as a breakout tanks for his armored cav regiments. There were good at that, but never designed for it.

@recoil53 4 ай бұрын

The army agreed, since nobody makes tank destroyers any more.

@mrbaab5932 4 ай бұрын

@@recoil53Because they make man portable anti tank missiles. Ever hear of the war in Ukraine?

@gnosticbrian3980 4 ай бұрын

Yes, and I've heard of Pakfronts, PIATs, RPGs and Panzerfausts...@@mrbaab5932

@recoil53 4 ай бұрын

@@mrbaab5932 And yet they make tanks. There were also a lot of wars in between, as well as many decades. Then again, bazookas already existed in WWII. It's like you're pretending to be wiser and know a lot, without having those qualities.

@akihitokoizumi2474 3 ай бұрын

@@mrbaab5932 They got rid of the tank destroyer branch right after WW2. Still have tanks.

@brianartillery 6 күн бұрын

The British used the M10, and then upgraded it with the seventeen pound AT gun as fitted to the Sherman Firefly. This modification, which made a good tank destroyer a superb one, was known as the 'Achilles'.

@airbornesteve1 3 ай бұрын

Equally important as the tank was mechanized infantry which followed up on armor breakthroughs and assisted in screening and destroying antitank guns and enemy infantry...

@davidboda1640 Ай бұрын

tank destroy M3 with heavy metal music in background lol

@andrew3203 5 күн бұрын

Tank destroyers were the turretless vehicles which were used by Germany and later USSR, with emphasis on frontal armor and firepower. The American TDs were basically light tanks, with emphasis on speed and firepower. After WW2, some nations took note of this and continued producing light tanks, especially France, but also UK and USA. The turretless armored TDs like STUG and Panzerjaeger vanished from history, and never returned.

@Errorinfection 4 ай бұрын

Such a missed opportunity for the title ‘US panzer smasher that made the Fuhrer furious’

@kenmartin7713 4 ай бұрын

Why did you show a churchill 3 or 4 with the 6 pounder??? Instead of the 90 mm tank hell cat? Could you not find footage of the 90 mm 😮

@EarleALLEN Ай бұрын

served in 5th batt./6th inf. reg./1st armor div. at Ft. Hood Tx

@scatton61 13 күн бұрын

Please loose the music. Great video otherwise. However the Matilda2 tank almost stopped the german advance before Dunkirk. If it hadn't been for the Germans using their 88mm AA gun they would have been in serious trouble.

@richardtibbetts574 4 ай бұрын

He said “deep in the enemy’s rear” heh heh heh 😂

@Calvi36 4 ай бұрын

Oh dear Mrs. Your name and your comment I came up with Dicked Tobbits, deep in the enemy's rear lol.

@badgerapocalyps2546 Ай бұрын

I thought this was going to be a video about the P-47 Jabos

@jimmynoo 4 ай бұрын

late night 2000s history channel vibes

@nathanbowers1284 4 ай бұрын

@DarkDocs what's the background music you used in this video? Great history info your videos give btw! Love them all!

@mChrest05 4 ай бұрын

You know, if you just showed a picture of the correct tank destroyer while you talked about it this video would be much better. You found pictures of all the generals. I had to check Wikipedia to see what the different tank destroyers looked like.

@yancowles 3 ай бұрын

I think this dude just randomly picks images of AFVs with his eyes closed - if I were you, I'd try someone else for this type of content. I'm only here because I clicked by mistake thinking it was someone else's channel; not sure if this person actually has that much interest in historical accuracy in general.

@carrickrichards2457 2 ай бұрын

The 6 pounder (57mm) was very accurate and especially with APCR rounds, unlike the 2 pounder (37mm), was an effective tank killer. (Stug, Pz 3 and 4). It remained in UK service until 1959. As a towed gun its sucess was partly due to its low profile, allowing it to be easily dug in. Its teething problem was its brass recoil slide which warped when hot. This was fixed by 1942. By mid 1944 the 17pounder (76mm) was the pinnacle of Western Allied guns. British 25 pounder (88mm) where short calibre and though used in North Africa with solid shot, were poor tank killers.

@thassanbd 11 күн бұрын

The music is not doing any good

@davidr.t529 4 ай бұрын

13:29 is that the infamous Bob Semple tank??

@kungfuwitcher7621 4 ай бұрын

Man this channel has gone way down hill since I first came across it. Have some integrity dark docs and show a machine that didn’t even see service.

@lychan2366 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for an enlightening video. That the tank destroyer played a role in neutralizing German panzers is not in doubt. Nevertheless, allied air power also played a significant role in destroying them too.

@BojanPeric-kq9et Ай бұрын

Soviet armored played even greater role.

@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 4 ай бұрын

“Panzer Smasher” Good punk band name

@paulyule7413 3 ай бұрын

i enjoy your competent and entertaining podcasts. Not being any kind of expert, I find the distinction between tank and tank destroyer a bit nebulous. Some tank destroyers are just upgrades of standard tank models.

@canadagoose1480 3 ай бұрын

Realistically, tank destroyers are downgrades of tanks. They may have heavier guns, and are maybe more maneuverable, but have much lighter Armour and thus, much more vulnerable

@WelshRabbit 3 ай бұрын

PY, not exactly. TDs (other than the M3 half-track), were tanky-looking things but in no way were they tanks as they were highly vulnerable to anything larger than small-caliber weapons with their very thin armor and they had a completely open turret That was one of the problems -- infantry tended to view TDs as tanks and were always trying to use them as if they tanks in a role they were completely unsuited.

@canadagoose1480 3 ай бұрын

@@WelshRabbit yes, that too. Thank you

@mikekmit6045 2 ай бұрын

Small correction: There was no "10th" Panzer Division in Africa. The Afrika Korps consisted of the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions.

@jimmiller5600 4 ай бұрын

This is a good channel. It would be better if the videos were time-linked to the audio. Showing Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs during the fall of France muddles reality. And it fails to mention that with all this mechanized wonderwaffen most the German soldiers and logistics were on foot or horse drawn.

@Blastoice 4 ай бұрын

The videos have gotten so bad, he showed rommel in late 1944 on another video when he was dead. Its gotten very historically inaccurate

@hertzair1186 4 ай бұрын

Dark is a cluster

@leanbongo7929 4 ай бұрын

There was one video about the Westland Wyvern (A post war Royal Naval aircraft, largely used in Korea) and he showed a load of footage of the Hawker Typhoon (A WW2 RAF Fighter that wasn't used post war, I believe).

@yancowles 3 ай бұрын

@@leanbongo7929 Yes, I wonder if some kind of intervention may be required in the near future. His already urgent tone seems to have been dialled up in this one too.

@user-vj7el2wg9b 3 ай бұрын

@@leanbongo7929 His video about the Fairey Fulmar almost exclusively shows footage of the Fairey Firefly. Fair enough though, there probably isn't much footage of the Fulmar available.

@anthonyiocca5683 4 ай бұрын

Heavy tanks make formidable roadblocks for checkpoints…

@Verboten-xn4rx 4 ай бұрын

The awful Walker Bulldog for a second...

@jamesromanski8508 3 ай бұрын

The narration from 8:50 to 9:04 confused me. I got it though, after watching it three times.

@bhut1571 3 ай бұрын

P.S. The Firefly used by Britain and Canada was very effective against German tanks in Normandy. A moment of rememberance to Art Boon who manned a 50 cal atop a tank from Juno Beach through Holland.

@davenesbitt7716 3 ай бұрын

So which one of the 30 odd tanks you showed was tank destroyer??

@EddietheBastard 2 ай бұрын

In 1940 the BEF was far more mechanised than the German army. The destroyed tank shown at 4:13 is a sherman firefly - it had a gun well able to defeat any german tank - and also one that arrived in 1944 when the western allies had more tanks and better organised and equipped armoured and all arms combat teams. The tank destroyer was far from a uniquely american weapon, though US tank destroyer doctrine was a defensive doctrine. In action with the allies moving forwards most of the time they worked in overwatch roles - and in this role the US designed TDs performed admirably in both US and BCE service. TDs worked in their designed roles in Tunisia, at Anzio, and during the battle of the bulge. With Pershing and Centurion western tanks got to the point of having equal or superior guns to the TDs and thus the vehicles became obsolete. The dominance of BCE and US air power and artillery also undermined the need for TDs. Interestingly, reading the TD doctrine, it maps well onto the use of modern helicopter gunships in NATO tactics.

@edwardloomis887 3 ай бұрын

Tank destroyers were invaluable at the battles of Arracourt and the Bulge.

@jameshaxby5434 3 ай бұрын

Excep for the obvious, the A-bomb, what would you say was the most important weapon of the war ?

@brunozeigerts6379 3 ай бұрын

My understanding of the tank destroyers was that they were the superb execution of a flawed concept.

@chrishooge3442 3 ай бұрын

I think that's the opinion of the Armor mafia. A fast platform with a heavier gun could use maneuver/mobility more effectively than slower tanks. The video mentions that the emerging doctrine was to keep many in reserve in order to counter enemy armor attacks. Today's equivalent of a tank destroyer is the IFV with ATGMs that outrange guns. The M1/M2/M3 doctrine was for the Bradley to strip away tanks from Soviet formations using their TOW missiles and superior optics. Then the tanks would go to work on the BMPs. When Bradleys were introduced to NATO the Soviets had to classify every Bradley formation as a tank destroyer. It changed the calculus on the battlefield and the Soviets couldn't keep up. Desert Storm confirmed the concept.

@brunozeigerts6379 3 ай бұрын

@@chrishooge3442 A good book on the subject is Tank Killers: A history of America's Tank Destroyers. by Harry Yeide.

@stevestreeffrealtor5507 4 ай бұрын

Great video, as always, but please lose the sound track!! I’m ok with metal, but it’s really distracting as used here.

@michaelshore2300 3 ай бұрын

Combined arms units demonstrated on Salisbury plain in the early 30s

@resipsaloquitur13 4 ай бұрын

NZ came up against 1AD once and then was like, "Nope!" from then on. lol

@albertcipriani8926 4 күн бұрын

Lose the heavy Muzak which is way too fast-paced for your highly syncopated, elevated , and somber narration. Otherwise, I really liked it. Cheers

@billmmckelvie5188 4 ай бұрын

It wasn't Guderian who came up with the concept of Blitzkreig, it was Sir Basil Liddel-Hart, and unfortunately he put into print as the British establishment wasn't listening to him, one of the readers of his book was Guderian. Also the French tanks were superior to the German tanks. France like Britain went for static line defence her tanks didn't have radios and sacked Generals prior to key battles, these Generals were trying to put things right! Certain French Generals did communicate with us Brits. Don't forget on the 19th May the British mounted a counterattack and almost cut off the German supply lines, again lack of good communication meant it stopped, also Rommel halted the advance by using anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank warfare.

@johndough1703 4 ай бұрын

This channel is abysmal. I used to watch and was amazed at the flagrant inaccuracies. I decided to check if he was still bullshitting his way through his “Dark Docs” and was not disappointed.

@tommy-er6hh 4 ай бұрын

Sir Basil Liddel-Hart was part of the ALL TANK idea, he did not advocate a combined arms approach. Of course neither did the Germans until they saw how weak tanks in Poland were vs infantry in built up areas, or vs air. Then they put infantry, artillery and anti-air in ALL their tank groups, which they had not before.

@billmmckelvie5188 4 ай бұрын

@@tommy-er6hh Thank you for your comment I've probably fallen for his view that he was the one the Germans followed. However one should not forget that he was advocate for bombing cities, as away of weakening enemy morale. Which clearly the Germans did, However there is no primary source linking the Gemans with his work. At best his work could have been classed as a confirmation that German thinking was going down the right path!

@kazdean 4 ай бұрын

@@tommy-er6hhIt was an Australian general in WW1, Sir John Monash that showed the world the effectiveness of detailed planning and combined arms at the battle of Hamel. Incidentally it was also Australians that showed the world German tank doctrine could be defeated when they gave Rommel's tanks and supporting infantry a bloody nose and held Tobruk for 10 months.

@ottopuppy 3 ай бұрын

And in 1995 I was using a 2-story high machine in a machine shop in Calif. and I asked the maintenance man why the machine had German writing on it and he told me that it came from Germany and was used to make all the Panzer main gun barrels.😳

@Bod8998 4 ай бұрын

Whats with the shit music last few episodes pointless makes me turn off sort it out

@frankrosebrock4424 3 ай бұрын

What a stressing background music! Couldn't listen along any longer than a few minutes.

@isaiahgarcia5563 4 ай бұрын

lol really all tank destroyer training happened in Killeen tx I live in temple tx I never knew this man that’s awesome

@anthony3968 3 ай бұрын

My grandma lived for her gardens. Canned her own food. She was a great survivalist and didn't know it.

@CorpusCrispy 4 ай бұрын

The music took from this one I think

@jaybox4284 4 ай бұрын

Your thumbnail is of a super heavy that didnt leave testing till after ww2 ended and never made past three prototypes on production.

@oskarvomhimmel6936 3 ай бұрын

"Panzer" means armored/armor...The dude with Don Quijote "Sancho Panza" was the guy that carried his Armor, hence the "Panza" or "Panzer" ...The armor worn by kings and knights has that shape over the belly which also makes reference to the "Panza Armor" belly meaning "Panza" in Español ...which was the main Armored Part of the individual...over the Chest, which may also explain the "Chester" part...in reference to Armored men, or Soldati which also makes reference to metal fused, or "Welded" together as it is what "To Weld" means in Español..."Soldar"...also, in reference to Heat, as that from the "Sun" or "Sol" which is how metal was fused/diffused together and apart from the ores...🤓

@TheGreatSteve 4 ай бұрын

The thumbnail is bullshit, the T95 never made it into production.

@peanutsauce7798 4 ай бұрын

*T28

@matthewexline6589 4 ай бұрын

I have to LOL a bit at the music you guys chose for this video. I mean, to be honest, IT WASN'T A BAD CHOICE but that very fact also gives an all-too-honest and yet not very flattering insight into the psyche of the people who are watching this lol.

@lancegerneglia7015 4 ай бұрын

Please get rid of the background music!

@BojanPeric-kq9et Ай бұрын

ISU 152 was the ultimate "scrapper" of every German armored vehicle, not just tanks, including Tiger, King Tiger and Jagdtiger.

@user-ph1oh7lz1r 7 күн бұрын

Apart from the music, almost all of the film footage is from years after the beginning of the European war... don't think there's any images of a MkIII Panzer?