German Thoughts on the Churchill Tank
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 05. 2021
- What did the Germans think about the Churchill tank, specifically the Mark I, II and III? This video is based on a German report of the Churchill Mark I, II and III captured at the Dieppe Raid (1942) as well as some other German reports about the Dieppe Raid. Additionally, we look at errors in the report and provide context, like a comparison to other heavy tanks, e.g., the KV-1, the Germans faced.
Cover: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-291-1205-14 / Koll / CC-BY-SA 3.0
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:B...
Cover colorization and modification design by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOK ««
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» CZcams Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Fletcher, David: British Battle Tanks: British-made Tanks of World War II. Osprey: Oxford, UK, 2017.
Montgomery, Nigel: Churchill tank. Haynes Inc: Newbury Park, California, USA, 2018.
BArch, RL 20/167, Kommando des Flughafenbereichs 10 XII (Morlaix).
Generalkommando LXXXI A.K.: Gefechts- und Erfahrungsbericht über den englischen Angriff auf Dieppe am 19.8.1942
Armeeoberkommando 15: Stellungnahme Gefechts- und Erfahrungsbericht über den englischen Angriff auf Dieppe am 19.8.1942
Perrett, Bryan: Churchill Infantry Tank 1941-1945. Osprey Pub.: London, UK, 1993.
Henry, Hugh G.: The Calgary Tanks at Dieppe. Canadian Military History 4, 1, 1995, p. 61-74.
Kavalerchik, Boris Konstantinovich: The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa: Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front. Pen & Sword Military: Barnsley, UK, 2018.
Kilgast, Emil: Rückblick auf die Geschichte der 302. Infanterie-Division. Selbstverlag: Hamburg, Germany, 1976.
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Champion: the top Tanks of World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2015.
Jentz, Thomas L.: Panzertruppen II: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany’s Tank Force. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.: Atglen, PA, USA, 1996.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb...
www.tankarchives.ca/2017/10/le...
www.tankarchives.ca/2019/06/6-...
panzerworld.com/relative-armo...
www.thespec.com/news/canada/2...
#GermansAboutChurchill,#ChurchillTank,#GermanPerspective
Want to see more content that is out of German Military Archives? Consider supporting me. You get early access (no ads) etc., learn more here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv OR » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Errors, Corrections & Additions:
- At least two times I give the frontal turret armor for the Churchill III with 4 inches (102 mm), it should only be 3.5 inches (89 mm), so the German report is correct there. Mixed up the armor values with the Churchill I & II turrets. Thanks to various people who pointed that out.
2:03 - This was actually not the first amphibious landing with tanks involved, apparently the first were at Alhucemas Landing (1925), thanks to my Patreon Miguel Aldaz for informing me. As such, the Dieppe raid was likely the first amphibious landing with tanks involved in the Second World War.
4:38 - The IS-1 57mm gun was an attempt to create a successor for the ZIS-2 with a shorter barrel. Thanks to Andy for pointing towards this omission and Peter from Tank Archives for the clarification.
All kv1 tanks after German invasion have additional 25mm plates on front hull armor so it's 100mm not 75mm (75mm hull armor have only 1940 early 1941) most of front turet is mantle (it's 90mm) and 1942 kv 1 turets are 90mm (some with round turets 105mm).
Churchill mkIII turet armor is 89mm. 102mm is mk I and mk II if i good remember late mk IV have 102mm too. :)
This may be of interest, the Churchill was the base for the funnies, the most frightening being the Crocodile, www.normandywarguide.com/archives?page=5 they have the two British Reports on its performance. It has been quoted this was “ feared more by the Wehrmacht than the British feared the Tiger” the report states they saved more lives than they took, because of the fearsome reputation the Wehrmacht troops surrendered. Needless to say, engaging the SS with the Crocodile, was more robust after finding the murdered Canadians.
On the engineering front it had the Merritt-Brown 4-speed constant-mesh epicyclic gearbox transmission, the Tiger had a similar system, which I recall from the Tiger 131 original engineering reports, please confirm with the Tank Museum, was either copied or stolen from the British.
So all in all it was similar to deployment of Bazooka's before D-Day? Undermining Allied war effort by giving away new equipment to the enemy in situation when it wasn't exactly needed.
@@filipmisko9363 it also was the period which earned KV-1 reputation of "mobile bunker" ie it spent 90% of the time being broken down mess. Which was fixed by KV-1S that did the opposite, lowered armor thickness to lower weight and had a new transmission type installed, the one that would be inherited by IS series.
People still argue if KV-1S deserves to be called heavy tank or if it was de facto heavily armored medium like Jumbo, considering it brought KV series even closer to T-34 in terms of armor and mobility. This is where KV-13 project started.
Ironically enough, just like Tiger is basically a german KV-220 being a year late to its grave designed without knowing about one another, both Tiger and Panther copy timeline of problems encountered by KV and T-34 themselves. The more you read on them, the more of a deja vu you have about different people running into same trouble caused by same sources.
They "couldn't be bothered" how the heck do you know that...? also Canada is a bilingual country, look up the name of the battle in French...perhaps that's why the coin is named that way...or perhaps YOU "couldn't be bothered"?
- "So the Germans captured our tanks?"
- "Worse."
- "What else did they do?"
- "They judge us."
Brits: Good. Now we start using AMERICAN tanks...he he he...
@@pexxajohannes1506 which were shit too :D
@@Purifycaly I'd argue that the sherman was a good all purpose tank. It was very adaptable with many configurations. It just didn't have the power of a panther or a tiger.
@@Purifycaly i wouldn't call them shit, the honey stuart had a good reputation for its time, and the stuart in general proved a popular light tank amongst the allied forces.
and the sherman was also very good when first introduced, and even later was still able to be upgraded to be good enough, while maintaining good reliability/etc which allowed for its mass deployment an ocean away from the factories.
@@Purifycaly M4 was literally the best tank of WW2.
*Imagine instead of having your enemy discover your new technology currently pushing for production, it ended up in a full constructive critism.*
Imagine the british capturing german engineers to collect tank feedback
Imagine having a obsolete tank and still hammering them into submission.
@@JoolzThePirate to be fair american aircraft did 99% of the work and American tanks did the other 0.9 %
@@boblaryson3621 American aircraft..... I suppose all the Lancaster bombers did shit all.
@@boblaryson3621
Air support did less than you think. Air Kills against Tanks are vastly overstated.
My grandfather had a friend, Mr. Armstrong, who was a driver on one of the Churchills on the Dieppe Raid. He said the tank only made it a few meters away from the shore and then became stuck. They then provided fire support from where they sat, but when the withdrawal was called they couldn't leave the tank after the ammo ran out (they were ordered to cover the retreat to the boats) as everytime they attempted to open the hatch the germans would shoot. The tank rang like a bell but nothing penetrated the crew cabin. His whole crew was captured and resided in a PoW camp for the rest of the war, which he said wasn't that bad until 1944 when food rations were severely curtailed and they started having to eat captured rats.
The more I read about the Dieppe Raid the more misguided I think this raid was and it appears in part to have been a form of political appeasement for the Russians mostly at the expense of our loyal Canadian allies. It had very little chance of success and the sacrifice of over three and half thousand troops, nearly a thousand of whom were killed seems a tragic waste. It makes Churchill's other major military disaster, the Gallipoli invasion in WW1 appear rational. There was no way they were going to be able to repatriate heavy armour back across the channel. As the allies found in North Africa capturing the latest enemy tank to investigate its strengths and weaknesses is a major intelligence coup.
@@catinthehat906 I remember hearing, as a child, that Churchill did not even expect Dieppe raid to succeed. All he was looking forward to, was the message such a raid would send to Joseph Stalin. Churchill wanted Stalin to understand situation was not yet good enough for Western Allies to challenge Wehrmacht in ground combat in continental Europe.
thanks for sharing :)
imho the dieppe raid was a complete F-up from which valuable lessons were learned
@@Cybernaut76 Seems bizarre now to send a thousand men to their death and another two and a half thousand to a prisoner of war camp to demonstrate to the Russians what must have been obvious. The waste of materiel was also significant, landing 20 Churchill tanks to support the American troops on Omaha beach on D Day may well have made a tremendous difference to the carnage there. It's not as if the Allies were doing nothing, they were fighting a full scale war against Axis forces in North Africa and were desperately short of tanks and men after their defeat by Rommel at Gazala in June 1942.
@@catinthehat906 Remember that what is "acceptable losses" depends heavily on lots of different factors such as culture, political conditions, time in history, military situation.....and also how much power does the mainstream media have due to different factors such as media technology development and whose side have they taken Examples 1) After the fall of Ottoman Empire, British suppressions of Iraqi rebellions with thousands of dead British soldiers KIA was considered acceptable. 2) The total blood cost of operations such as Bagration, Saturnus, Uranus etc etc etc almost certainly was more than 500 000 (!!!HALF A MILLION!!!) Soviet soldiers KIA....and upon hearing that Stalin was extremely happy that the Fascists were being pulverized. 3) Dont get me even started how many British soldiers were lost as KIA in Gallipoli. Still it did not kill Winston Churchills future. 4) All those earlier cases were a far cry to Americans being abysmally appalled because they suffered 19 KIA, at least 1 POW and two shot down Black Hawks in Mogadishu clash that happened in 1993. It is possible Churchill considered the expected British losses at Dieppe as nothing because of his earlier experiences....and because at the moment he gave his go ahead for the Dieppe operation, it did not occur to him the future generations might frown at him because of that, especially the critical and objective internet generation of today. It was not like that when he led the British forces to battle first against Central Powers, then against Latvian immigrant criminal gang in East End (that was the armed conflict where he was closest to death as his top hat was grazed by return fire from Latvian gangsters), then against Axis Powers. That man, besides being the product of his own time, also had seen too many wars and armed conflicts all his life.
I am not so sure that the Churchills were to be recovered. I ran into some Canadian documents on the raid, the indication I got from them is that the ships which landed the Churchills were the ones which were going to be used extract the troops, the implication being that they never expected the tanks to leave the Continent. It can also be difficult to get a tank onto the landing craft when beached, as it means the craft would be beaching without 120 tons of tank on them, then trying to off-beach with 120 more tons pushing the hull onto the sand/mud/silt, though there may be ways of fixing that, like unbeaching anchors
That makes me wonder even more. Why would they effectively hand the brand new tanks to the Germans, then? It wasn't an invasion, just a testing raid. Did they have nothing else to throw away? Like some M3 Grants?
I wonder what that says about the British own view on the Churchill at the time? When the Germans first committed their Tiger's at Leningrad and some broke down/were knocked out, they did all they could to recover it so the Soviets couldn't inspect it. Dieppe is the British army's first use of the tank, and they are maybe leaving a couple dozen behind for the Germans to look at free of charge. I wonder if the British viewed the Churchill as a lost cause given the mechanical reliability and design issues, and it wasn't until King Force at El Alamein that the perception changed that the tank may have some value.
@@kellyshistory306 The first three marks were mostly assigned for training rather than combat units, both due to their prototype and work in progress nature and due to the nature of conflict being fast paced rather than the trench warfare they were designed for. Second it wasnt a substantial investment in resources for the British, it was 60 tanks of which 29 were sent in, but almost 2,000 Churchill Mk 1-3 were completed or soon to be completed by this time.
@@watcherzero5256 The Mk III was a combat variant, the initial units deployed in North Africa and Tunisia used the Mk III so they were potentially ditching combat level tanks there for the Germans to capture. The Mark IV, which was used in Italy and North West Europe, was just a Mk III with a cast turret. So when they're leaving the MK IIIs behind they are "showing their cards" so to speak in terms of design, technology, weapons and whatever else they can learn from it. And while not a substantial investment, there were churchill units in Italy that had to use mixed churchill/sherman units due to lack of numbers. Certainly they shouldn't be throwing them away like that.
Mind you, plenty of aspects of the Dieppe raid were questionable, so maybe the recover of tanks was not all that well thought out. Louis Mountbatten, who played a big role in planning the raid, has a rather mixed reputation both at the time and later among historians for his competence as a military leader.
I’d assume that they would blow up their own tanks to stop them from being captured
Noice, glad we found this file - it's the perfect fit for your channel!
I was gonna say -- this is _exactly_ why I subscribe. Also for the legendary German humor exemplified at 0:43.
@@johnd2058 So true.
I'm sure@@neilwilson5785 will also second my lauding of MHV's anticipatory nuance at 11:22 ; I too was thinking they were being rather harsh, but the contextualizations inform us as to the Wehrmacht testers' perspective.
Bismarcki boi
finder's keepers
nuh uhh we want are file back
1:30 "The force was supposed to be landed and withdrawn before the Germans reacted"
A plan that involves a passive enemy is not a plan but a prayer.
True, but I think the british - wrongly - assumed that the germans didn't have any forces available with which to react in a meaningfull way within the time frame of the operation.
@@Bird_Dog00 well... they did assume the same in Market Garden...
I believe one of the negative points of the Brithish command is that... they ussually tend to relax when they are winning.
They were self-convinced that the Krauts didn't have ANY proper anti-tank weapons. That was pretty close to the mark. Dieppe went sideways for a LOT more reasons than the Churchills. On paper, back at HQ, it seemed that their tanks could just land, roll over the Kraut pop-guns, and shoot the Dickens out of all pillboxes -- very close to what the Churchills actually did on D-Day.
Absolutely no tank circa 1942 was going to survive rolling over tumbled chert. BTW, chert is right next to flint. So if a tank tread shattered any chert cobble -- you'd get as slew of wicked 'arrow-tips' to snuggle down with. (!)
@@davidhimmelsbach557 What got me in my studies of the Dieppe Raid, was that the British KNEW what those beaches were made of. Dieppe was a holiday resort prior to the war.
As an Englishman I was sitting here nervously awaiting a deluge of laughter and scorn on one of my favourite tanks ... but ... no, that was a well considered, argued and judged critique and assessment. Very much appreciated. And yes, we know it's ugly and looks like a child's imagined drawing of a tank, but ... I like it ...
... and that's what we Germans appreciate so much about the British ... sportsmanship ... :)
@@mikeromney4712 You're most welcome :)
as a "Close Combat" player/veteran I would like to have as much Churchs as possible to support my infantry advance. They are intimidating enough as Infantry Support tank
@Billy Smith Later Churchills had better armor and guns, so quite hard to combat from the front. There were also flame churchills which belonged to the most feared / hated tanks from German side
@@UsoundsGermany Churchill always had mechanical issues, very slow and most importantly very poor Gun! Black prince was a too late concept. Churchill always had a poor armament!
I love how you just start with a topic instead of rambling on for ages before you start.
yeah like "the Churchill is blah blah blah blah" he just assumes you know what this all is otherwise Google it!
Also if a German shows off about efficiency ask them about the new Berlin Airport 🤣
@@LordInter or their current energy costs.
Berlin Airport and Energy costs are also a sign of efficiency, it’s the efficient way of milking your customers, the efficiency of lobbyists and the effective way to install an inefficient bureaucracy. It all depends on the point of view ;D
I can see it now, the stuck tank crew looked on in horror as 2,000 Germans descend upon them on their Bicycles. Constantly ringing to demoralize the British into just abandoning their armor.
We need an episode on German bike models and effectiveness.
WHEN THE GERMAN BIKES ARRIVED
Look out! They are sending in the fat bottomed girls!
😂good comment
@@hayro252 COMING DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN SIDE
Dem tank vs bike.
Tank suffer heavy loss 😏
I did my history degree at the Royal Military College of Canada. One of my profs, an Armour officer and PhD of history, kept a pebble on his desk he picked up from the beach at Dieppe.The pebble was a reminder to him to consider, "is there some small detail that I haven't considered that will turn this into a disaster"
A better lesson and reminder is that Canadian troops need to be lead by Canadian officers, as at Vimy in WWI, rather than being used as replaceable colonials. The treatment of RCAF pilots in Britain was to give them the worst billets and keep the good housing for the RAF, so this wasn't a one-off thing.
I was a Bradley mechanic for 15 yrs in the US Army and did 3 tours in Iraq along with many many field deployments. I was also a recovery operator, so broke down and battle damage was something I dealt with allot. Especially in Iraq. Obviously I was never in WW2 lol. But just looking at the small road wheels that the Churchhill tank has I can easily understand WHY they would have issues in loose or soft terrain. Any time a tracked vehicle turns it scrapes the surface its on. So it will dig up soil and rocks, mud, and even trees knocked over. This loose material can get in between the track and the road wheels and definitely between the track and drive sprockets and idler wheels. Support rollers can have this happen but typically when track jumps over them its due to idler and sprockets dumping the track due to soft material or rocks and such dislodging the track. The shallow depth of the road wheels means its much easier for soft material and debris to get in between the track and road wheels. And if that material finds its way front or back the track can be thrown off. Or it can snap the track all together. While deeper road wheels definitely doesn't eliminate this issue. It does give the vehicle a little more leeway and reduce the chances of this happening. When I was operating my M88 I always kept tight track because I knew from first hand knowledge and years of experience this can save your ass if the sprocket carrier bolts sheer off. The track tension will keep the track and sprocket on during towing/recovering.
But even though I kept tight tension another mechanic still was able to throw track on my M88 when he took it on a mission in Iraq. At first he tried to blame me and say I didn't keep tight track tension. Something I immediately knew was bullshit. And after talking to people who where there I found out the guy was pivot steering on soft ground until he threw track. It was later found out he did this on purpose because he was scared to be outside the wire. But this helps illustrate my point. Even through a tracked vehicle has tight tension and deep road wheels. Its not impossible to throw track if enough soft material is fed in between. And if you knew you were getting a dangerous amount of material in your tracks. You often just had to drive slowly at first forward and backwards to work the material out. Then just make short turns and drive in a straight line to work the material out. This is something new guys just aren't told and why so many armored units have issues with throwing track and breaking track during field training. And even war. Obviously the "SHIT HAPPENS" saying does apply here. And yeah SHIT HAPPENS at times. Especially if the crew is driving at combat speeds and is making turns during war or training. But that doesn't excuse the Churchills design. Granted all of this is me looking back on a past design and knowing what I know from experience over many years. But allot of what I have said was very much known before WW2 happened. These issues were found in earlier designs going around before Germany went on the offensive. Meh it still happened and lessons were learned from WW2 that still echo into modern designs. The Churchill and other tanks taught us lessons in blood. We should never forget the sacrifices those men made for what we have today.
I could not read that poorly paragraphed, please admend.
@@Mulberry2000 Well luckily you don't have to read it.
@@Soulessdeeds Yeah because it is a useless read.
@@abellseaman4114 Clearly you have not heard of the Centurion. Best post war tank for 30 years. As for appeasment, stop moralising, the brits had sufferd a lot in the great war, and the Americans demanded from 1896 to be taken as seriously great power, the Brits and French agreed, but what did the Americans do? They said they did not want any responsiblity of a great power - so they appeased Hitler and his cronies, yes ww2 was really America's fault. If they had said no and sided with the french, and brits in 1930s Hilter would of backed down.
@@abellseaman4114 Neville Chamberlain was a conservative.So...
I think they measured the turret thickness of a Churchill Mark III which had a 89mm thick turret front. (The turret front of a Churchill Mark I is 102mm thick) The 2mm deviations in turret and hull armor are probably measuring errors or differencess in measuring technic.
My Source is War Thunder btw :)
Most of my tank knowledge is also from wart.. I mean studying and reading
bruh
2mm could also be the production tolerances
Churchill I has an extra 50mm plate on the gun mantlet, giving the tank effectively 152mm armour in the front of the Turret.
Actually the variation of turret thickness comes from the cast turret and the welded turret which vary the thickness of the armour
As a Brit, I am required by God, Crown and bloody minded ignorance to say that you are wrong about the Churchill. It is the best tank to ever take the field, and anyone who says otherwise is probably French! 😂
Hahahahahaha
Hahahahaha underrated comment!
I completely concur old boy, how could it be any other way.
Angry Char 2C noises
@@lepoulpe4142 Arthur Wellesley triumphed over Napoleon Bonaparte, and the Churchill shall triumph over the 2C! No baguette monstrosity can ever overcome the might of the crown!
For what the dieppe raid was trying to accomplish it would’ve been a much better idea to just send in some Valentines. They certainly weren’t amazing tanks, even in 42, but if they assumed this was just going to be a skirmish facing light resistance they would’ve been pretty much perfect to support the infantry. They also would’ve been easier to recover and much less of a problem if the enemy got hold of them.
I was thinking Matilda 2s, but you are correct of course.
The Churchills of Dieppe were, in a way, the most expendable. They already were working on improvements, so the Mk I was basically already in line to be replaced. Valentines, on the other hand, were still the mainstay of the infantry tank fleet, so losing a few of those meant a battalion in North Africa was not getting replacements.
I also question just what harm there was in the Germans getting their hands on an early Churchill, because the Germans pretty much saw it for what it was: another slow chunk of steel like every other British infantry tank, something the Germans already were well-experienced in handling.
@@genericpersonx333 I agree fully with you! The Churchill is almost a 1st WW tank having in mind the scenario of trench warfare but with the fall of France it was not important anymore! Basically it went in production 1941 and was deployed the first time at the raid of Dieppe...
@@paoloviti6156 Indeed. I get why people want to love these big slow infantry tanks, but I can't help but see how their slow speed really made them problematic in many battles where they just couldn't get to where they were needed because they were so slow. Doesn't matter how tough or deadly your tank is if it isn't where the fighting is.
@@genericpersonx333 I think you may be measuring their performance against what you envisaged them doing. Infantry support meant that they needed to stay with the infantry. You didn't want crazy drivers haring off at breakneck speed leaving its infantry cover behind. The tank was not meant to deal with other tanks but entrenched infantry and fixed strong points for which it was given a number of weapons. My favourite was a bunker busting shell the troops nicknamed the flying dustbin. This described the shape of the shell and relatively low speed. But it had a brutal charge.
Great video, Bernhard. Glad I was able to contribute!
Thanks again!
It seems all the people from my favourite channels know each other!
Sad German is my favorite icon
That and the uh...other ‘escort’ icon...
I've rewatched that video...what "escort" do you mean?
@@vaclav_fejt not in this video, just in general
@@looinrims dont get it still
@@astartesfanboy5294 it’s too innocent we must preserve it no one tell
@@looinrims I know by escort he means prostitute, but I don't know the context it was used in to make the joke funny.
I love how the icon for 'engaged from too far away' is a Star Wars Stormtrooper! hahaha, funny as f*ck!!!
Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise...
I just have to say, your channel is one of the best, unbiased, well reasoned and detailed military analysis I have ever seen. Wonderful work!
There was a story that the Germans took the Churchill for a real close inspection and decided that it would be a good paper exercise that it be "upgraded, German style", ie, what would you do to improve it. First thing, more periscopes and episcopes. Better guns. Better tracks, as they considered that the tracks were of an elderly design.(read David Fletcher on British tracks)... Track return rollers on top instead of skids, as they considered that the internal noise was far too high, from having no rubber on the roadwheels and the noise of the track on the skids. I also read that they considered the driver's view port a wrong idea as it created a "hole" in the front armour. British drivers also complained that the protusion of the tracks structure added to the bad view from the driving port. The Germans were perfectly aware that the tank could climb at high angles as they tested it thoroughly on their own ranges and understood the vehicle but they probably didnt not consider it a tactical advantage.
As for it's armour, the Pak 40 and 88 and other guns were considered sufficient to kill the Churchill in 1942 and the Panzerfaust and panzerschreck certainly could later on. With regard to the Crocodile, it only came into play after the relative failure of the Wasp flamethrower vehicle and the use of manported flamethrowers. Crocodiles only worked when they could get within very close range of the enemy and the enemy Paks and tanks had already been suppressed by air or artillery. If a Churchill showed itself within range of a Pak, it was as vulnerable as anything else. British troops had learned the hard way that combined operations between tanks, guns and infantry and plentiful air support was the only way to shift determined defenders. The Germans often didnt help themselves by holding positions to the last moment, which only guaranteed a fiery demise, instead of being a bit more tactical and yielding or shifting position as required.
Next up "What did the Germans think of Church's Fried Chicken?" Specifically the Church's chicken sandwich.
"utter garbage...jawohl"
The 75mm breast round produced explosive results the next morning.
Best when combined with an Arnold Palmer.
Upon further inspection it was determined by the German high command that Popeyes was superior in all respects.
@Kyle Fish You say that like it's a bad thing!
They must have been truly shocked in march 43 during the north African campaign when two of those not very good mark III's tore apart a transport column including quite a few anti-tank guns then proceeded to return to their regiment, no doubt in time for a brew. Although you have to admit it's astonishing hill climbing abilities did come in very handy on that day.
9:24 Dieppe beach is covered in nice big flint pebbles to be exact. Even walking there is complicated because the slope means that the foot tends to roll them slightly with the risk of twisting your ankle if you are not careful. Probably one of the worst places on the Normandy coast to land, even if the strategic objective was tempting given the port capable of accommodating cargo ships. Thank you for this very interesting video.
Consistently the best material on the subjects at hand. Thank you for your hard work and for your usage of real archival information!
Glad it was helpful!
I just cant help but being impressed with the quality of most of the arguments here. Thank you.
As a Brit, always mystified as to why, after experience in the North African desert, work on a game changing tank, the Centurion, did not take high precedence and accelerated development from it's start in 1943. We had decent aircraft aplenty including jets towards the end but the Centurion didn't see service until late 1945. With a 84mm shell from the outset growing to 105mm, there are many that feel it could have taken on the Tiger (when it met them, there weren't that many about on the Western front) given it's speed , maneurerability and relative economy. The Centurion was highly regarded and with a long life, only being retired by the Israelis in the 1980's.
I think it was desperation. Alanbrooke said that right up to 1942 the allies (the Brits anyway) were hanging on by their fingernails. Whatever it was, was needed yesterday. Tooling up for a completely new design rather than things in the pipeline was not feasible. Only when there was time to throw out the rulebook and think did the Centurion emerge, after a lot of hard experience. Also, British tank designers were just a bit crap judging by some of the rubbish they came up with (Valiant anyone?)
@@ogilkes1 Can't disagree. It's an embarassment given the superiority that the Germans and the Russians, showed in this field. No one can dispute, though, the courage of the tank crews in engaging the enemy, Goes for those in Shermans also. Tank crews from either side were quite heroic.
"this tank will kill many germans!"
Germans : "dieser Panzer ist scheisse"
dream on mate omg
Scheiße*
Well, the early Churchill was. However, it was probably the most modified tank in the war after the Panzer IV. The Churchill Mk VII was a beast of a tank, much beloved by its crews due to the serious damage it could sustain.
@@jonhart7630 The VII was great... when it finally got anywhere. With the positively blistering top speed of 12mph it could take a while, but you'd be nice and cozy while you waited.
@@Prometheus19853 the british probably made it slower just so they can enjoy their tea longer. Tea time is serious bussiness.
8:02 Actually they are more likely to have been equipped with captured French Puteaux 47mm. L.53 PaK.181(f) or Puteaux 47mm. L.53 PaK.183(f) anti-tank guns, both of which the Allies faced following D-Day in 1944.
Performance from German Kummersdorf evaluation tests:
PzGr.(f) APC = up to 95mm, @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres
PzGr.40 APCR = up to 177mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres
As can be seen, both the PaK.181(f) and PaK.183(f) could, in theory, make a mess of an early Churchill tank.
Those are quite impressive penetration values for a early war gun of rather modest calibre.
The guns used by the defending Germans were made up of the 37mm, 47mm 50mm and towed 88 according to the war diary and the German propaganda book I read while I was working in the archives.
@Blesava Konjina I mean, it's possible if they developed new rounds for it
@Blesava Konjina No, look at the distances and angles. The PAK 40 could manager 99mm at 100m with PzGr. 39, which in just distance through is 114mm. That's well over 95mm. The PzGr 40 figure is impressive, but I doubt they got much or any of that.
@Blesava Konjina Why not? They used quite a few of the French 47mm in action. If easy to develop, why not. I can't see Dieppe being issued many new rounds compared to the Eastern Front, though.
You put in your own accurate captions! Thank you so much!
yeah, for at least a year now.
My grandfather designed the fuel systems for the Churchill tank , thanks so much for this insight
1:00 "Wehr-Nerd Inspection"
I just love the humor in this channel.
And I have no idea why I wasn't subscribed yet...
Love the level of detail and well rounded commentary
Excellent channel for real information without fluff
A Canadian documentry came out a few years ago which found out that part of the reason for the Dieppe raid was to get an enigma machine that was in the town. They even interviewed one of the commandos sent to find it.
This part doesn't make sense to me. When they got Enigma machines from a UBoat or two, the Brits kept it really hushed up, so no word reached the Germans that a machine had been taken.
It makes it hard to believe they would try to just nab one in the raid. It would sort of give the game away...
@@johnsowerby7182 Furthermore the Army, Air-force, and Navy each had different enigma machines with the Navy being the most sophisticated. Capturing an Army (I assume) enigma machine would not help with the battle of the Atlantic and, I could be mistaken, but the Army and Air Force enigma machines were already broken as well.
@@johnsowerby7182 Recent work on the Dieppe Raid has found that an important part of the attack on Dieppe was the "pinch raid" to capture Enigma material. British naval intelligence began to move away from targeting German trawlers for Engima material and toward raiding shore facilities, which would contain richer caches of Enigma material. This was spurred on by the German introduction of the 4-rotor Enigma machine in early '42. Raiding shore facilities for Enigma material would actually do the opposite of "give the game away", as it is easy to disguise the Enigma "pinch raid" within the broader raid of a port facility, making it less likely for the Germans to find out that the goal of the raid was to capture Enigma material. A Dieppe, the Anglo-Canadians intended to land special Ultra indoctrinated commandos who were trained to recognize Enigma material and raid coastal buildings that were known Kriegsmarine facilities. They in fact did capture a 4-rotor Enigma machine at Dieppe.
@@lucasdasilva5415 So, you are saying that the Germans knew that the British had at least one Enigma machine in their possession ? This changes the whole Ultra story.
@@mihaiserafim ..The Germans had total confidance in the security of Enigma messages throughout the war. It wasn't until the fighting was in Germany itself, where landlines were used more than Enigma, that Ultra was of less use.
For those who don't know what chert is, think flint and remember how sharp flint axes and knives can be. Flint is actually chert, generally regarded as higher quality than common chert, but both were used the same way back in the stone age.
So basically those tanks were driving across a field densely covered with sharp axes and knives. No wonder their tracks got a bit messed up.
Good catch at 0:38 about the Royal Canadian Mint. Our Canadian government cares so little of our military history, they would not catch a huge mistake like that. Another example was calling our first huge military victory at Vimy Ridge as Vichy Ridge. Thanks for pointing that out.
As a citizen of Hamilton, Ontario, where the greatest losses are remembered, I’ll point out that the average person would not recognize the code name for the Dieppe raid, much the same way that the average person would not recognize Overlord as the code name for the D-day invasion.
This channel just blows me away sometimes. Good work as usual!
This is excellent military history analysis content. Theres not many other things out there like this. Very very good. I would watch every similar video 100%. Thanks for making these.
Interesting Video. As a German-Canadian I visited Dieppe several years ago and found it interesting to see where they were trying to land the tanks and the troops. They were in a horseshoe shaped beach with good cross fire positions, a steep rocky beach with a big seawall between the sea and the town. Not a very well thought out plan by the allies. My father who had been a German panzer commander on the Russian front had a good friend in Calgary who had been a tank commander with the Calgary Regiment (tanks) during the Dieppe raid, but did not make it ashore as he was to be in the second wave. He did later land his tank in Normandy on Juno beach. So a German tank commander became a friend of a Canadian tank commander in Canada after the war and enjoyed many beers together.
I live in Calgary! Dieppe was definitely a defensive Dream. The air recon missed all the bunkers hidden in the cliff sides. It was poorly planned and it led to some Conspiracy’s here that the British sent the Canadians to be a “smoke screen” so the Commandos could steal an Enigma machine. I am glad that those two survived and could bond over shared experience and beer. Wonder if the Panzer commander thought Saskatchewan looked a lot like the Ukraine as well?
@@jaredisley-oliver389 There are lots of theories about Dieppe, some that is was done quickly to keep Stalin happy, others to boost the number of volunteers in the Canadian Army as many possible recruits wanted to see action and not just garrison England. There were some good lessons learned and many were applied to Normandy. Without Dieppe, Normandy could have been a disaster.
@@jaredisley-oliver389 He fought in Germany, Poland Hungry, Austria and ended to war in Czechoslovakia, Ukraine was lost by the time he entered the war.
There is a Churchill tank at the Military Museum in Calgary. What scares me about the tank is the open tracks on the side of the tank. I can't imagine the danger to the infantry that would try to hitch a ride on the tank.
@@peterhaase3198 the Saskatchewan part was more of a joke. Worked better in my head I guess. I go to the Remembrance Day ceremony most years at the museum. I know the tank. I think he very slow speed would minimize most of the danger as one of your bud’s could just grabs you off the track.
The version of the Churchill that was supposed to have become feared is the Churchill Crocodile. This being a flamethrower variant of the Mark VII which would not have been used in tank vs tank combat but against machine gun nests and the like.
I enjoyed this elucidating video very much. Layout and presentation both were great, and the research/sources seem great too. Its really amazing to have access to the German point of view from contemporary source material. Thank you
Excellent video. I love the way you go so far to back up your assertions and are so unbiased.
The Dieppe raid was a disastrous mess, and the beach was desperately ill suited to the conditions, and the tanks failed to get off the beach. The Mk3 onwards served highly effectively in North Africa, Italy and the 1944/5 Northern European campaigns. Churchills were famously loud - and the beach was exactly wrong.
Interesting, and well researched video.
ps It's possible that the "feared the Churchill" reference comes from later experience during which the Churchill's fabled hill climbing capability was significant in many actions and to the "crocodile" flame throwing variant - which was a truly fearsome vehicle.
This is a question I've had for a long time! Thanks so much!
There is a story from Normandy in 1944 where 3 Jagdpanthers destroyed 10 Churchill tanks in only 2 minutes. This was the first time the British had ever encountered a Jagdpanther and lucky for them a few miles down the road after the fight they actually found 2 of the tank destroyers, one had been burned out due to track damage, the other had not been burned out so it was sent back to England and studied.
My grandfather was radio officer in a Churchill through North Africa and Italy. I didn't get to know his opinion on it but he returned home safe to his wife and children, so clearly a good tank.
Great video as always Bernhard!
This was Awesome. Please more from these reports.
I love the symbol for citation needed being a chainsword.
My Father was with the Calgary Tanks, and introduced me to several veterans of the Dieppe Raid. I am also good friends with the Curator of the King's Own Calgary Regiment (Calgary Tanks) Museum. I don't know how much technical info he could provide about the tanks, but the raid is a big part of the Regiment's history, and would be a great resource if you plan on doing any more research towards it!
Great video.
No mention of the Churchill's legendary climbing ability. Maybe they didn't think to check.
most of them got stuck on the beach in their assessment, unless I missed something, I can't recall anything. Not sure if they tested it.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized As I recall a majority of those landed made it off the beach before running into concrete obstacles they couldn't pass because their supporting engineers were cut down on the beach.
They then returned to the beach and covered the re-embarkation of the infantry.
But that doesn't mean the Germans correctly assessed what happened or cared about some aspects.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Read more about the Churchills climbing ability in Normandy. No Tank would have been able to climb or move effectively on shingle. It was a cluster fuck. But, valuable lessons were learnt for Normandy, which wasn't a cluster fuck, well not for the allies anyway :)
@@luciusesox1luckysox570 Irrelevant for this video.
@@luciusesox1luckysox570 b
Well reasoned arguments, and the paperwork to back it up. It's a pleasure to listen.
The Mk I turret was 89mm of cast armor. The MK III was a welded turret.
The front hull was variable 89mm plus 12mm of additional armor. This may be where the max - min data shows 102mm. The nose plate was 76mm + 13mm @ 20° of armor. I don't know if the additional armor was added later in the war to upgrade the tanks. There was a 3" howitzer in the nose of the Mk I.
I can't find any official mention of 102mm of turret armor, but one Churchill book says it was only 89mm at the time of Dieppe.
I only have one dedicated Churchill book, but I will take a look tomorrow. There was quite a bit of rework and variation in turrets, although a lot of that seems to have been where radio aerials and extractor fans were more than anything else.
Later versions of the tank did see far thicker frontal plates on hull and turret
Germans seeing the Churchill: "Lol, lmao."
Germans seeing the Croc variant immolating their mates: "i want to apologise."
@Rita 25 y.o - check my vidéó why is the bot typing an actual comment....
@@lukesalvidge5451 It copies comments from further down. I guess it picks popular ones.
@@frostedbutts4340 Nah, Germans seing that abomination: I need one of those too.
How great is to watch such an interesting assessment along with Chris aka Bismark, Jesse Alexander and the Chieftain?
An excellent and through analysis. Perhaps it's the most detailed I've seen.
Great balanced report. Loved the 'Engaged from too far away' icon - Stormtrooper =)
Nice find from the German archives. As David Fletcher said about the Churchill, _"it came back to haunt the Germans"._ Its design was flawed in many aspects, however its assets were outstanding. It was a vastly underrated tank, as its overall performance showed.
The Churchill _was_ a rushed together infantry tank design. They never had a proper tank engine for it, using two joined together bus engines creating a flat boxer engine (giving an advantage of a lowered centre of gravity). The tracks ran all around the tank's body, like a WW1 tank. The Germans saw it thinking it was just that, as it looked outdated in many ways, and outdated to other British tanks. It was viewed as an old expendable tank design, probably only used for one raid. The Churchill was introduced one month before the Tiger 1. The Churchill was similarly armoured to the Tiger 1, but weighed far less at 39 to the Tiger's 50 tons.
It is clear the German assessment was poor, in getting some matters wrong and also missing some unique aspects of the tank. They never tested it fully for sure, as if they did they would have discovered its amazing climbing ability. *It could even turn on its own axis.* Mark Felton did a good vid on its climbing ability, with a few of them wiping out a whole German column in Tunisia by climbing big hills the Germans never expected a tank could climb. czcams.com/video/2p-izpDBZv4/video.html
The German assessment failed to full appreciate the Merrit-Brown gearbox, which was also used in the Centurion, which also climbed mountains in Korea to the amazement of the Americans. The throw away Churchill tank was also used in Korea.
No tank in WW2 had its climbing ability and none were better in beach shingle. Well over half the tanks at Dieppe got over the high beach wall, something the Germans seemed to miss. none got into the town as roads were blocked with large concrete blocks. As this vid points out, only a few were bogged down on the beach _due to the shingle._ The Germans tested their own tanks in beach shingle and _all_ got bogged down. The tracks running all all around the tanks body gave the Churchill superior beach handling properties.
Only a few months after Dieppe, the Churchill was to be phased out, however it performed excellently at El Alemein, so kept on. Its unique properties came to the fore in the mountains of Tunisia. It was kept on with 400 of them being up-gunned in Tunisia.
The last version of the Churchill was a match for a Tiger 1, as the 6-pouder gun using APDS shells could knock out any Tiger 1 - and not with a _lucky_ shot. Its armour was similar. The Tiger 1 was faster but the manoeuvrability and go anywhere nature of the Churchill gave it the edge. The Churchill could run over bridges the heavier Tiger could not. The Churchill did not need a tank transporter to get it around.
The Churchill was not used for tank v tank engagements, as its versatility and manoeuvrability were better used in other roles. The tank's ability to be adapted for various roles was seen by Hobart who developed it into many of the _Funnies._
If you were a general of an army with adequate anti-tank guns to destroy enemy tanks, given the option of having 400 Tiger 1s (the tank many have a strange fascination about) or 400 Churchills, you would go for the Churchill as it was far, far, more versatile filling many roles an army needs. Bare in mind that most tanks were not knocked out by other tanks.
Did not know that about the climbing, certainly game changing in that regard.
APDS is irrelevant to the Churchill, just like HVAP is irrelevant to the 76mm Shermans, and APCR is irrelevant to German tanks.
Those shells were reserved almost exclusively for AT guns, anything left over was handed out to TDs and other gun carriers, and regular tanks *might* see one of those shells (literally a single shell, maybe 2) on an *extremely* special occasion. More likely, they "found" a shell or two and kept it in the rack for "safe keeping". German HEAT was just about the only "special" shell you would realistically see in any number outside of AT/TD units, and that was also all but exclusive to the snubgun Panzers.
@@Prometheus19853
6 pdrs could fire APDS shells.
@@johnburns4017 - Wow, you missed the point so badly it's like you're pretending to BE an APDS shell.
Go re-read the comment and try again.
@@Prometheus19853
Again..
6-pdrs could fire APDS shells. These shells could knock out Tigers.
I came across somewhere (a Tank Museum chat?) that the Germans concluded, based on the poor assessment you quote, that these tanks were actually an old or abandoned design and the British were therefore just clearing out alot of old junk - any views ? Great video as usual thanks, MMM
I heard something similar.
The Germans even 25-30 years later think British mistakes are 4D chess moves xD
When the Germans inspected the Churchills left at Dieppe, they thought that the British had actually sent surplus, obsolete (i.e. disposable) tanks. Whereas, the British had actually sent their latest, most advanced model of tank.
@@dlyonthescreen2657 they didn't really , at this time most of the British tanks where being lend leased to the soviets and over the war nearly outproduced the Germans in terms of tanks built . but its more the fact that 1942 is a area where the Brits realized that they needed new tanks and only had pretty outdated designs for the time .
The flame thrower variant was very effective.Veteran tankers remarked “you only had to spray a pill box with petrol un-ignited to get them to surrender”.
Let's do a quick in-and-out raid at Dieppe, chaps!
Jolly good, we'll take our biggest heavy tank!
Insert facepalm.
Churchull: OH! Lets use commenwealth forces for that! They love that stuff! *fondly remembers the landing at the dardanelles*
@@marxel4444 Ooooh, good one! 👌😋
@@marxel4444 One of my favorite Churchill burns. Gallipoli, Norway, ...
@@marxel4444 you realise most of the soldiers at Gallipoli were British right?
@@lesdodoclips3915 The first wave was Anzac and then reinforced with french,canadian and british,right?
For what its worth, I spoke to a german vet(was conscripted into a recombined mixed jugen/volkssturm/wehrmact unit at age 17in 1945). And he said when defending against a British attack he noted no fear of their tanks at all from the combat veterans. I specifically asked him about how the average hardened soldier felt about the American/British tanks.
I'm inclined to believe that story is partially fallacious. Any sane infantryman will be at least wary of tanks, but most likely would be scared or terrified of tanks. Even the lightest tanks such as M3 Stuart or BT-7 could tear apart an infantry formation while being (relatively) impervious to the weaponry of your average footman. There's a reason why tanks were prioritized so heavily when deciding what enemy assets to destroy first.
@@bluntcabbage6042 In 1945, the average German soldier had the Panzerfaust; a one shot tank killer that was easy to use.
@@alexandermelbaus2351 That was also limited in range and had only one shot with no chance of fire adjustment.
Panzerfaust was a legitimate danger to tanks but don't overstate its potential. It was a very short ranged and slow moving warhead whose launcher could only be used once. Outside of near point blank range, it is a gamble whether or not the panzerfaust would be able to destroy an enemy tank. It's far from an end-all-be-all solution to fighting armored vehicles, smartly positioned and commanded tanks can greatly mitigate their risk of being damaged or destroyed by panzerfausts.
@@alexandermelbaus2351 Panzerfaust is to NLAW as Model T is to Veyron.
@@aaronleverton4221 The Panzerfaust is very different to the NLAW. Back in the 1940's, it It was very effective. Their production was simple and virtually anyone could use them. The Panzerfaust had no recoil and there were not many tanks that would survive against it. The most common produced had a range of 60 metres. There was another that did 100 metres. It was only about 5kg, accurate and proved deadly; anyone could point and shoot it with ease. Another of Germany's innovations. Germany created the modern army.
I have to admit, these videos are really interesting and informative! Since you've covered the Churchill I-III (From the German Perspective), I feel it would be interesting to look at the Churchill AVRE (Modified Churchill used by British Royal engineers on D-Day and in other areas), as it was one of the first kinds "Armored Engineering Vehicle" that proved the whole concept.
I appreciate the original text being available side by side with the translation.
I love this fucking channel. It's a great way to review German as it covers a topic I love. I can read both languages I've studied side by side, greatly reducing look-up times in a dictionary. Oddly enough, the explanations in German are more inherently more succinct in the end.
probably because the english is from his own translations and he's no professional translator? still good job as far as I can tell
...* explanations in German are inherently more succinct*( i don't know as i don't read German.
explanations in German are more inherently more succinct in the end.)
. inherently also seems an inappropriate word (there is probably a more suited one )
I never thought about the fact, that it was odd for Britain to send its newest tank on a probabale one way Mission. Great, now my interest in the Diepp Raid ist sparked and i will need to read and review more Books :)
Recommended: Mark Zueklle's: Tragedy at Dieppe.
Read green beach a great read
Well it was far from the stupidest thing about Operation Jubilee.
The use of the Churchill actually makes a ton of sense, it was doing exactly what it was designed to do. Cross difficult terrain and support the infantry in an assault on an entrenched enemy position. And for the most part they did exactly that, except the engineers supposed to destroy anti-tank obstacles for them were cut down on the beach so they could only go so far.
The only odd thing was it being the first use. And in that vein, how much value was there really in the Germans capturing some of them? How much value was there in the British using tanks that were expected to be used in future landings?
It also could be as simple as that was what was available in the Canadian Corps.
I heard somewhere that the british let Germans capture equipment so they could listen in and intercept their criticisms for the next model,
@@demono6708 You think the Germans broadcast their after action & technical reports? Or that the British could somehow "listen in" to the typewriters writing the reports or postal employees delivering them?
Great channel!I was wondering, how do you come up with the various images for your graphics? Must kind a tough… But you do a great job
Love the many sourced report and detailed analysis, particularly loved the rubber duck for the book that had no good sources, made me chuckle! p.s. never heard of Chert here in england, we have Flint?
Poetic in a way that the biggest weakness of the churchill was? A chert hill.
Were the Germans able to later employ the Captured Churchills with any success??
Great video and great channel. Factual, fair and entertaining. I have subscribed!
I learned something new. Good program.
I've been waiting so long for this video.
I think I saw a document once, saying that the Mk IVs had access to the APDS rounds for their 6 pounders (or were ordered by Gen. Monty). I wonder if they ever managed to pick off a Panther with them.
with their speed? doubt it, apds isnt really know for accuracy and moving slowly towards a tank to improve accuracy isnt usually common practice
I think the inaccuracy problems with the APDS were only in the 17pounder, not the 6.
I'm sure I read a source somewhere on it, but take it with a pinch of salt.
@@drbedlam9786 No. They were pretty bad. List some UK ballistics tests on my web page. panzer-war.com/page40.html
Ah fair enough. APCBC was decent at least. (Just not against a panther frontally lol)
@@501Mobius Your own page data shows that the 6pdr APDS was (basically) twice as accurate as 17pdr APDS, and that the 77mm APDS was twice as accurate again. The real problem with the question is that APDS for the 6pdr tended to go to the RA AT units, not the tank units, especially given that by the time 6pdr APDS was a thing, most of the Churchills were armed with the 75mm.
For those interest in the Dieppe raid, The Ace Destroyer has a really good video showcasing the "fate" of the Churchills deployed there. Well worth a watch.
14:00 It's possible that the book was referring to one strength the Churchill tank had which may have taken the German by surprise on a few occasions, namely it's climbing ability.
The Churchill apparently was a very good climber and could get up hills that some, perhaps even most, other tanks couldn't. Supposedly there were a few incidents where the Germans had left a particular hillside relatively undefended, because their tanks couldn't climb it, but the Churchill did. In addition I've heard of stories of them being able to cross (or rather go into and climb out of) anti-tank ditches without problem, ditches which presumably the German's had dug, and thought was sufficient to stop tanks.
Personally I wonder if the reason the Churchill was so good at climbing (assuming of course that it was), was because of it's length to width ratio. The Churchill is unusual for a tank in that it is quite long and relatively narrow, most other tanks are shorter relative to their widths. This would I assume have made the Churchill slightly less manoeuvrable when turning, but more stable in a straight line, in the same way a short wheelbase Hatchback is more manoeuvrable, but less stable at speed than a (relatively) long wheelbase Salon car.
Alternatively another reason the German may have started to fear the Churchill (if they did), could simply have been because of the Churchill Mk.VII Crocodile Flame Thrower. Looks a lot like a normal Churchill until it start spraying fire all over the place, particularly if you're a bit distracted by all hell breaking loose all around you...
My first time viewing your videos and I'm very impressed. You don't rely on expensive graphics or the often annoying film footage from something not appropriate for the subject, and lastly you don't waste time with a long winded intro or try to sound "exciting" like the awful narrators on the History Channel. Well done! Reflecting on that awful waste of young Canadians I realize that the failure of the raid and the capture of such a poor Tank made the German High Command not fear a future invasion as much.
7:00 The armor layout of the Tiger was modern and designed for combat distances of over 2000+ meters. With a view of the ballistic trajectory of the opposing armor-piercing ammunition at 2000+ meters, the Tiger actually opposes them with angled armor with its vertical plates. If the armor of the tiger were angled, it would again approach impact angles of 90 degrees.
Maybe, but that would make little sense because tanks only very rarely engaged each other at such long ranges, about 800 meters seems to been the average engagement range.
@@roberthardy3090 Your statement is true for most of the other Wehrmacht tanks, but the Wehrmacht had different operational principles for the Tiger. The Tiger was assigned to the heavy tank battalions. These units were not used like PzKpfw IV or V (Panther). They did not fight highly mobile with motorized infantry. They did not march like the other motorized units but were transported to where they were supposed to fight. They were not allowed to be used in wooded or urban areas. They were also not intended for rapid advances and deep breakthroughs with motorized forces. They were not allowed to conduct combat reconnaissance or general reconnaissance, as well as cover tasks. The Tiger was used in attack and defense operations where the mass of the enemy's main battle tank was to be expected. He should not fall below the combat distance of 1200 meters and ideally, fight at 2000 meters. If possible, he should fight in defense from hull-down positions. In the attack, he should start the firefight already at 2000+ meters. Just as a reminder, in World War II tanks had to make a stop to fire precisely. So they were on show for the defender if he wisely chose the terrain for defense. The distance was therefore often the best protection. Shooting from motion was only useful at short distances, and of course with HE against infantry. To be honest, the Tiger wasn't a main battle tank, but a tank destroyer with a turret. He was never able to perform the classic tasks of a main battle tank of the Wehrmacht, which is why he had his own operational principles that were adapted to him. These were different from those of the main battle tanks, which traditionally fought highly mobile with motorized infantry. How the Tiger was actually used at the end of the war due to the general lack of operational tanks is a different story. But what you see in trash movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or all the junk from the 60s and 70s has led to a completely wrong image of tank warfare. In reality, the tanks face each other at a great distance and fire at each other over a fairly long period of time. If enough tanks burn on the other side and this gives up his position, the movement will continue.
The Soviet 57mm gun was called ZiS-2, IS-1 is a heavy tank. It’s funny to observe how often westerners mix up soviet weapons. BTW this AT gun had very powerful armor penetration abilities and even was considered as overpowered.
Fantastic Research mate thanks a lot
I knew of a pub near Shrewsbury (Shropshire, UK) that used to have a Russian T34 tank on its front lawn (gave me a huge double take, and suspicious glance at my beer, when I first saw it). On one occasion, as part of an April fools prank on the owner, they arranged to have the tank taken away by a JCB transporter, they even mocked up tank tracks/divots on the lawn, to make it look like it had been driven off! “So what?” You might say. Well, that particular tank no longer had its engine!
It’s no longer there, and I can’t remember the name of the pub, sadly….
**update**
Found this online from local newspaper archives
‘When Dillon Brooks, licensee of the Old Three Pigeons in Nescliffe, near Shrewsbury, incurred the displeasure of the planning authorities when he started to amass a collection of historic military vehicle outside his pub.
The collection, included a glass-fibre replica of a Sherman tank, which had been used in the war film A Bridge Too Far, as well as Russian T-34 tank, a gun and various armoured cars.
Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council was not impressed, and suggested the Three Pigeons should apply for permission for a change of use to a car park for military vehicles. Police were also concerned that it was contributing to car crashes in the vicinity.’
I suppose that’s why the Tank had gone, and sadly I never saw the Sherman replica or other military stuff.
*I’m also not surprised people were crashing their cars - I’m pretty sure that pub was on a corner of the road, and I’d be a mite surprised to find myself driving around the corner just to be confronted by the gun of a T34 at point blank!
This all happened decades ago, though…..
Perhaps my IT career has influenced me too much, but it seems the Churchill thanks were treated like overworked and underpaid QA testers; thrown to the wolves without caring about the consequences.
And today I learned of the word "chert" thanks to this video.
Your disclaimer comment at the beginning regarding _Jubilee_ is accurate.
The current Canadian government and its departments have --little-- no knowledge of history nor the desire to learn.
You don't know how British parliamentary style govt. works apparently. The departmental bureaucracy stays the same no matter which party is in power.
A very well researched and presented video yet my favourite part, by far, is the way you say ree-port.
Thank you! I was having problems sleeping, but this video fixed that!
Glad it helped!
First tank anphibious landing was done in the "Alhucemas landing" by 11 FT-17 and 6 CA1 of the spanish army
see pinned comment
I wonder if they assessed other things like radio, gunsights, engine reliability, crew ergonomics, etc? You know, the stuff we are used to getting from Chieftain and MHV :-)
What is German for 'Oh bugger the tank is on fire'?
Or the fact the churchill had excellent performence grounnd pressure wise and steep slopes. I mean its not the best tank but it certainly had its merrits....
Despite having an absolutely bad engine unit & gearbox design
They might have been baffled looking at one of the later Churchills as some of them got radios that were originally going to go to the USSR and were still marked in Cyrillic!
@@F4Wildcat Yes, provided the engine worked, it would keep going over any terrain, just very, very slowly.
well the germans were used to unreliable fuel guzzling repair nightmares so they probably consider the churchill to be reliable in comparison
Danke für deine Arbeit.
Nice analysis, keep at it.
The Germans expected a huge cigar instead of a turret on the tank.
The turret *is* pretty much a huge cigar
The Churchill tank kinda looks like a WW1 tank with a turret slapped onto it. Like the one from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
The one from Indiana Jones never existed in real life, and the Churchill looks like a WW1 tank because the people that made it used older proven designs.
@@loumorningstar7709 So, the Indy tank was pure CGI? 😝
@@dallesamllhals9161 It wasn't CGI. They actually made a vehicle. It was never a tank that was used historically though.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 ..didn't see the 😝?
@@dallesamllhals9161 it was CGI indeed.
Indiana used the goblet of fire to travel forward in time and space to the point where he emerged from the time stream in the holodeck of the USS Shenzou, thought to himself "wow, this shit's amazing" and stole a holomatrix without anyone realising.
Unfortunately, upon getting back he realised that he had no idea how to use it, so they just poked and prodded buttons until a rough shape of a tank was formed.
Dude was a thief king, but god damn was he a shitty holoprogram engineer.
Dieppe raid was a hodgepodge of reasons, primarily to test german response, test equipment but the allies were doing that on english beaches of same composition, commandos were thete to raid the german radar stations for specs and enigma cypher codes, manuals.
“Mission is probably a suicide? Send them Canadians. We can’t afford spilling human blood.”
Gotta love Brit’s attitude.
fascinating and a big thumbs up for the stormtrooper gag :)
Thank you! Cheers!
Really interesting to hear about the chert stones at Dieppe I had always wondered how the British could have had such difficulty on a stone beach.
The British weren't there! Canadians got stuck with this mess!
@@vanjimbo the Canadians made up the majority of the forces (and sadly the losses) but the British were there too with 3, 4, 10 and 40 commando units, this was a combined operation.
@@vanjimbo the british were there, its just when your awful canadian documentaries are made they arnt mentioned
@@vanjimbo Least incorrect CZcams commenter(basically take no comment from anyone in CZcams or anywhere else seriously, especially not on anything military related, the people are stupid and far too strongly opinioned for such topics)
The Churchill was heavily underestimated. Good tank. The crocodile version was possibly the best (i.e. most effective) military weapon ever invented, by any nation, in any war.
I really like these kind of reports.Well done good sir!
A strange thought that occurs to me (and ignores the ethics), though I'm not suggesting it actually happened: it might almost be worth doing something that stupid with your new tanks but intentionally sending weakened, bad, versions with the expectation that they'll be captured.
The enemy thus gains a false sense of superiority and believes (even only temporarily) that your tanks are far weaker than they actually are.
Perfidious Albion strikes again
Imagine being Henschel designing the Tiger and you read the report calling the armour on the Churchill ‘not modern’ because of its angle.
*Welp, back to the drawing board*
*I will pretend I didn't see that*
Very good. I heard that the Germans grew to loath the later versions of Churchill because the front armor was so thick. And from head-on they didnt provide a very big target. But what really made them despised is when the Crocodiles showed up.
100 points for the "Final Värdict"! Thank You!