Video

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n IS NOT THAT HARD!!!

Peron.

Nope

> Plus there are reports of soldiers defending Omaha who had to use Polish liquid-cooled machine guns > which does not exactly fit the reports about the division being fully equipped with MG 34 or 42. 10:45 Other units were also present.

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized. thank you, I overheard - and did not know - that.

There were three sources of weaponry being used on Omaha: 1) Those of the 716th elements. Those troops remained there when the 352nd took over. Their MGs were mainly MG34s 2) weapons from the 352nd. They had MG42s in their frontline troops. 3) static (bodenständige) weapons, which were sector bound and provided additional firepower. Those weapons included captured MGs.

Oh, and about those ratings, it was used as a quick way to assess what a division was capable of. That's determined by the combination of equipment, personnel and training. The ratings are often based on the Zustandsbericht, which includes the commander's assessment of the quality of his division. In general those tend to be a fair representation of the situation: make your division look better than it is and you may be given tasks they're not up to, which you'll be blamed for; downplay your division's capabilities and get your leadership qualities questioned. So generally it is best to give a fair assessment, even if there is some room.

@@nielshenkemans3458, thank you for your answer. I believe to remember from the memoirs of Franz Gockel „Das Tor zur Hölle“ (?) he was firing with a Polish machine gun. That made me think the divisions defending Omaha Beach were ill-equipped - what made sense to me as I heard many Wehrmacht officials believed the main invasion to happen elsewhere.

'By barbarossa standard'. And there kids, is where the 'Normandy division was trash, allies useless' propaganda comes from: It's Russian disinformation Russian disinformation to peddle their fake narrative of the 'great patriotic war' where Russians did all the heavy lifting. In reality, Russian war contribution was negative. Russians strenghtened the axis by adding entire countries to it, supplied the axis with fuel, provided the axis with thousands of volunteers who went 'Well anything is better than Russian rule', they invaded China, invaded Poland, invaded Finland, provided 6,1 million labourers to the axis war industry, then lost so hard the British and Americans had to go save them, which in turn lead to the fall of Singapore because the Arctic Convoy ships were taken from Force Z.

The never " nearly thrown " anything back into the sea, stop being a wehraboo. Even the hardest landing Omaha only saw 2000 to 5000 casualties for the US and that includes wounded and missing. Where is this " nearly thrown " part in our reality ? Your idols never stood a chance to throw anything back into the sea. And the rest of the landings went easy for the Allies, little resistance, few losses. What " nearly thrown " is there ? I don't see it. It was a crushing defeat for Germany and one of the most important military triumphs in history for the Allies.

@@Vlad_-_-_ I agree. The division performed well all things considered but well just wasn't enough in that situation. With backup and better logistics things might have looked differently t Omaha beach but those are the typical "what ifs" that while fun are ultimtely useless. And looking back from now I am left with the feeling of sadness for the loss of so many lives on both sides. I'd rather have living young men than dead heroes. War just sucks....

Sigh... More pro-Russian censorship on CZcams, even to protect this guy posting 'Normandy division trash, comintern go brrr' propaganda...

@@doomhippie6673 Well said. The Allies had just an overwhelming superiority of pretty much everything they needed. There was no winning against that. Plus their armies were also skilled, well trained and well led by some of the finest minds. Its indeed horrible that people that could have ultimately be friends in another circumstances ended up killing one another. We would all be better off with no wars.

"How do these German ratings compare with American WW1-era estimates of 1st-4th class German divisions" You compare apples with oranges. The Germans had a very good grasp for the quality of their own units and usually were quite honest and blunt in respect to the quality. K.H. Frieser in Blitzkrieg Legend gives good examples for the ratings and the changes during winter 1939/40. Most higher officers served in the Imperial army which was considered very good in 1914, therefore, the army of August 1914 set often the bar even in WW2. (Only before Operation Barbarossa the avaerage infantry unit was considered on par with active divisons in 1914). In contrast, the WW1 US estimates were low quality. They were based on incomplete and sometimes outdated pieces of information, assessed by officers who did not understand the German army.

Sounds really unlikely. It's not like the German state stopped indoctrinating their youth at any point. There were plenty of new 17, 18, and 19 year old recruits to fill the ranks of those killed in the east.

Even in the static divisions it was more like 30-31. Yes, there were older troops, but the average was significantly lowered by personnel born in 1925 and 1926. Those were by far the most common years in Normandy.

@@nielshenkemans3458 Thanks. It was so long ago I don't even remember the source. Pictures of German prisoners at Normandy suggest they were older than average, though.

LW Fail Divisions

Train to guard airfields Not fight

Plenty actually. There is even a rather famous memoir (amongst the german speaking history community) from a tanker served in Barbarossa, got wounded, was in the stalingrad campaign in the relief effort to try to break out 6th army, participated in kursk, got almost fatally wounded, send to retrain on the new tanks in germany and was in france when DDay happened. He ultimatly ended up in hungary first in bucharest and them in vienna when both cities were overrun by the russians, to then flee west and surrender to the americans Bacuffz made the whole diary available here on youtube but in german, but I think there is an english trsnslation

@@justtheaverageone3840 I think I have read it. Wasn't he in the SS? I think the memoir is called "Panzer Commander" in English. He was a junior officer.

Yeah, i think the chances of you surviving the war was far higher if you were in the army already before the war then if you joined during the war. My own grandfather joined the german army in 1936 and participated in operation barbarossa in a grenadier regiment, he was a frontline soldier. The war ended for him in the courland pocket on 8th of may 1945. He came home from russia in 1947.

@@Carlton-B Peter's war is it called but I don't think he was, but I have not found an english translation yet

@@justtheaverageone3840 After thinking about it a while, I think the book was a work of fiction, and I can't find the name or author. It is similar to the book you describe, but it ends for the soldier when he is injured and captured in Vienna. It definitely isn't called Panzer Commander.

Lots went to the static divisions etc

You mean captured French tanks and artillery? Most of that was used on the Eastern Front. There were a hell of a lot of conversions and ersatz equipment with French guns on German chasses. I imagine only the smallest/weakest/oldest stuff was kept behind for shore defense. Bury a gun in the dirt, hide it behind a bunker. What's a 1930s 25mm low-velocity cannon to do in 1944? Barely a shotgun, really.

Many French tanks were used as static pillboxes or had their turret fittet on a German tank And the artillery needs new barrels every few thousand rounds and other spareparts Aswell Not to forget the lack of ammo

Below Average Pre-Barbarrosa, that means that Division is 2 degrees below the Divisions that conquered Europe.

Fit for offensive operations after rest is plenty good. The Heer was at its absolute peak June 1941. Almost the entire army had had a year to rest and retrain, yet most had also real life experience in 1939 and 1940. Plenty of action, very few casualties, all the prep they could need. Find me another army in WW2 that had 90% of their army in tip-top shape at the same time.

@@andrewklang809 Unfortunately for the Wehrmacht, the American and British forces in the UK were in the same or better condition, but with air support, tank support, and naval gun support.

@@stuartdollar9912 Many of the British and Canadian troops at D-Day had been prepping in one form or another for TWO YEARS.

@@stuartdollar9912don’t even dare to compare allied troops that fought in Africa with troops that conquered Europe in a few months Fighting in Africa was so so so different and mainly was won by logistics not combat skill

MHnV still uses graphs and stuff, but it's mainly because Bernard shows his face in these videos, too

Germany basically did what the French and Soviets did when they realized they could not arm everyone with a semiauto rifle: they gave a small number to units and said give these to the guys commanders thought would use the guns best.

In squads/sections self-loading rifles were often used instead of a second machine-pistol

Well think about it , usually only officers ncos and Mayby every second machine gunner or ammo bearer had a pistol

@@tavish4699 good point

Pistols were issued to a lot of the non-infantry troops.

I think you take is hot trash.

Your comment aged like milk. The video clearly demonstrates that the division was well equipped, well manned, and up to German army standards of 1944. And no, German soldiers having their brains bombed out in the Falaise pocket didn't consider the west to be a vacation. Sit down🪑and watch the video next time wehraboo.

*saw