Lesser-known details of the France 1940 Campaign
2024 ж. 24 Мам.
298 119 Рет қаралды
Your friendly history lesson, with a little bit of Op-Ed thrown in, some parts of the 1940 campaign in France of which many folks weren't aware.
Why was Guderian relieved of command?
Why might condoms have changed the course of the war?
What's a Niwi?
Was the French failure one of doctrine, or execution?
You get the idea.
Patreon link here:
/ the_chieftain
World War Two channel, if you haven't already found it... : / @worldwartwo
That story about the fench officer getting the exact orders to do obvious vital actions is exactly how i see my divisions on Hearts of iron
Basically, the French acted like in WW1 but it was in fact WW2.
@@aboomination897 well, that was their plan.
sorry to be so off topic but does someone know of a tool to log back into an instagram account?? I was dumb lost the account password. I would love any assistance you can give me!
@@aboomination897 what's the saying? Everyone is always preparing to fight the last war?
The whole scene leading up to that (everyone in various headquarters running in different directions) reminds me of Abbott and Costello's 'Who's On First' 😕
There is an anecdote in the book Panzer commander by Hans Von Luck where they push into france towards Fécamp where they were to secure it. They saw that there were two British destroyers in the harbor. So what did they do? Well they sent in two guys to tell the mayor that the town was surrounded on all sides and that they would lay siege unto the town if the garrison stationed there didn’t surrender, and the destroyers didn’t leave. The mayor refused so the guy returned to Von Luck who then held his word and opened fire on the town(and the destroyers) using everything from pistols, 8.8cm flak guns to even flare guns to give the impression that they had more manpower than they actually did. The mayor promptly surrendered the town. Fécamp is also the location of the Benedictine monastery where they produce the liqeur benedictine. So Hans told abbot they had chose not to lay fire on the monastery because of it’s importance. The abbot wanted to thank him and his men by giving every man under his command one bottle of benedictine liqeur each. He told them they were 1000 strong(or somewhere there about) the abbot was shocked but held his word. So every soldier got a bottle each. They later burried the bottles in a moot i believe to retrieve it after the war ended. However someone snitched and the french resistance dug them up and took them stating that the germans had stolen them from the french people. So they sadly never got to drink their bottles😂 Im sorry for this huge wall of text
No matter where, no matter when, soldiers are still soldiers
"Resistance" went and stole alcohol...typical.
Good story, whether true or not. What does it matter after 80 years….
I've been to two US military staff schools plus a joint warfighting school and you explain doctrine better than any brief I have ever seen.
I get the impression the guy above me complaining about nonexistent racism in the US Military while spewing racist nonsense is in fact the most virulently racist guy in this comment section.
Philip DuBeau yeah the US can’t win any wars lol ecs dee cuz racism *Wins a bunch of wars when it was normal to be racist*
I don't think the chieftain is available as a lowest cost bidder to be a content provider. 😂
Gaaah another wannabe liar poser boi....
I'd watch videos if you made them. The more people I can listen to the better
High command be like: defend the flanks! Rommel: CAN T HEAR YA, NANANAA Guderian: Flanks? You mean i am supposed to go flanking? Gotcha
I literrally heard that in my head with german voices XD HC had an exasperated angry voice too...
"Hanz, de general iz not listening de orda"
Vatt ze hell ar Vlanks? Zey ver nott infented inn Dziermany, zo vee kann not haff zem!
This is why the german system was so robust. It let the commander who had the boots on the ground make the decision, not conform to an order given 12 hours ago by someone in Berlin, who was possibly out of touch with latest developments. It worked !
@@Zamolxes77 And that someone in Berlin never got the memo that this was a good thing, for himself at least which is good thing for everyone else I suppose.
Its basicly still part of german officer training: show initiative, grap opportunities. "Disobedience" is ok...BUT only if it is successful, otherwise you'll be severly punished. When analysing your orders, the 1st question you ask: Would higher up given that order, if they knew what I know? If the answer is no...forget that order
That doctrine by itself (if it were shared by the French) would have made all the difference in the invasion. French soldiers were more than willing to fight and adequately equipped to fight a defense. Their officers and rigid command strucure let them down.
If it's successful, it is not "disobedience". It's "initiative".
Mission tactics or Auftragstaktik permitted the Wehrmacht to have a much more efficient command and control, coupled with how their armour was deployed vs the French Army which in terms of military doctrine hadn't evolved much since the first world war was the downfall of the French.
"I love it when a plan comes together" - Heinz Guderian in Paris, 1940
"Orders? What orders?" - Erwin Rommel, French coast, 1940
@@TreyWait "I'm think of vacationing in Poland. I hear it's nice this time of year" Hitler Aug 31, 1939
@@readhistory2023 that's not Poland! Said the Wehrmacht General.
Is it a cunning plan ?
@@TreyWait at least he didn't have any naval experience otherwise he would've likely been stuck in Dover
french high command:"attack dammit" french local commander:"not until I have written and signed orders in my hand" german high command no1:"don't attack, support elements are not ready" german high command no2:"don't you dare move forward" german local commander: 𝅘𝅥𝅯 es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin𝅘𝅥𝅯
German Local commander: “Oh yeah? make me, OKW!
Okay, THAT was freaking funny!
During the interwar period, the French invested in defensive fortifications, with the Maginot line, along the Franco-German border. This decision has often been ridiculed on the pretext that it revealed a defeatist attitude. But, France being less populated than Germany, it could not hope to compete with its only army. The fortifications were to compensate for this imbalance. The Maginot Line was intended to protect the industrial heart of France from a lightning attack by the Germans and to create a funnel in Belgium to slow the German invasion, and at first it worked. But the German army won the campaign of May and June 1940 thanks to its daring "sickle strike" in the Ardennes forest, which was deemed impassable by the Allied commanders. The British, French and Belgian armies were surrounded to the north, suffering heavy defeat. French strategic planning is largely responsible for this catastrophe, but let us not forget that it was an Allied defeat, not just a French defeat. With the Dutch and Belgians reluctant to risk their neutrality, there was little coordination with them, which facilitated the German attack. As for the British, they let France pay the price for the land war without giving it much support. The British Expeditionary Force in 1940 consisted of only 12 divisions. By 1918, there had been as many as 59. No wonder, then, that Nazi propaganda used to mock its enemies by claiming that the British were "determined to fight until the death of the last. French ”. The "miracle" of Dunkirk Although their generals were overtaken in 1940, the French troops fought with courage and skill. For example, during the Battle of Gembloux - May 14-15, 1940 - the First French Army succeeded in repelling German assaults on numerous occasions, gaining time so that their comrades and allies could withdraw. Without such rearguard actions, there would have been no “Dunkirk miracle” and the war could have been lost in 1940. After crossing the Meuse, the German Panzer divisions had only to travel 240 km towards the Channel coast to trap the Allied forces - 1.8 million French soldiers were captured and 90,000 killed or wounded. data source: * Gervase Phillips is Senior Lecturer in History at Manchester Metropolitan University (UK).
Shades of The Charge of The Light Brigade...
@@jmb2140 ok who asked though 🤔?
08:50 As a Belgian this was very interesting to learn. Brutal though. Given no orders, once they realized they where surrounded they decided to dig in and hold their position. Until the end.
And I doubt the Belgian company commander realized that he could likely punch through the forces behind him, in order to preserve his force. It's not like a rifle company has a whole lot of intelligence assets... Absent orders to withdraw, surrounded, unaware of how thin the forces were behind them, and not knowing whether a push through their rear to withdraw ( *against* the last orders actually received) had any feasible chance of success through a thin screen or would just be a suicidal frontal assault against a strong blocking force... The realistic options become: A. Surrender quickly. B. Dig in to maximize your capabilities and make those German bastards pay *cash* (with the currency of choice being blood) for that ground. As a chap who spent 8 years as an American light infantryman during the Cold War, all I can say to those Belgian troops is, "Hooah damnit, gentlemen! Y'all would have fit right in with my guys."
@@geodkyt thanks for the insight and for your service.
it's still considerably better, that belgian fortresses crews, which were safely defended deep inside their fortifications being attacked from one direction by a very weak force of german raiding party and they still decided to surrender for no reason... and surrendering without taking a fight against a force 10 or more times weaker in numbers than yours, IN THE FORTRESS and having plenty of supplies, ammunition and gear left is a freakin disgrace.... it's very, very french.....
i was born in just the right generation to experience chieftain rambling about history for 40 mins and i don't want it to change .
Watching this is incredibly sad. So much I would love to have told my dad and had lengthy discussions. It may have only been a weekend since I lost him but I have also lost my greatest friend to enjoy history with.
Shit man, I'm sorry! It's awesome that you had such a person to enjoy history with. If that's not enough, you had many long discussions with your dad. You are truly blessed. Cherish him & may all good come your way.
@@RahellOmer Thank you for the kind words 😁
@@Tuck-Shop sorry for your loss.
@@matydrum Thank you
Sorry Alex, I know how you feel. Keeping you in my prayers.
So the French campaign is an object lesson on the importance of communication on effective warfighting.
Exactly. Runners, couriers, telephone lines, etc. are not effective communication methods back then. Also the lack of tank radios.
Or that your doctrine should focus on lower echelon officers taking initiative (and not be burned as heretics for doing so) if you can't or won't have an effective communication network.
@@theordinarytime you still need effective communication to clarify orders, or in the case of the armored counterattack making sure the entire unit is attacking as opposed to two companies. With clearer communication and order cutting, subordinate officers will know just how much initiative they have to take without being overly reckless.
@@dongiovanni4331 I don't underestimate the factor that is communication. Merely that units with assigned AOs and low ranking officers given a a hefty leeway in the planning/execution of their operations will be more effective without the vital communcation structure that didn't exist here, than what was otherwise the case. Indeed there wouldn't be much in the way of coordination, but there wasn't anyway.
@@theordinarytime I think the whole of the Chieftain here is was to demonstrate that the doctrine wasn't at fault here. The execution by the French military command was the problem. That, and the socialists in power that consistently bitch slapped the army.
Love these informative detailed eloquent rambles into campaign specifics. Delivered by someone we know and love. Thanks big man!
Was going to leave this comment but you stole it from me.
@ZebsFrend 50 people agree with this. He is paid to research these topics and describes how he often finds material in his searches through the archives which does not relate to his work for wargaming, so he sets it aside to read on his own time. It's his job to know this stuff and he has no political motives. He's interested in telling the story how it is. I understand not finding his presentation style interesting, I watch something else or play war thunder or hoi4 while listening to his videos. As a podcast, they're very enjoyable and informative.
8:39 Is a perfect example of "When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard" -Sun Tzu
As a former years long WoT player who now hates the game, I never realized Chieftain was actually incredibly well informed both in armored warfare and in warfare in general. Greatly enjoy your videos and straightforward unobnoxious mode of presentation. Look forward to many more videos.
I'm in the same boat as you, the game is far to pay to win to be enjoyable for me and those kind of game unfortunately attract the worst kind of people. I also have not forgot about wargameing's treatment of sir Foch.
As a bonus, the videos are no longer riddled with looped music and weird cuts to display the logo.
14:22 “more stupidity afoot in the command structure” Sounds like Chieftan has met my boss 😂
The main difference is that in modern command/management structures, there is no accountability: you don't have to see and live with the effects of your fuck-ups when your actions have no negative consequences for you personally.
@@DiggingForFacts Precisely. Reciprocity and accountability are being lost in modern societies, furthering the gaps and disconnects between people, ironically in a world that gets increasingly more connected.
Stfu cry baby
@@hanzykrupps6383 Let me guess, you're an angry guy on the interwebs living with his mother... Yeah, projection much?
So True. What most people do not understand is especially in a military situation a leaders decision/decisions can be fatal to his men and the mission. For example in Afghanistan where COP Keating was placed. An OP with no strategic importance and one of the worst places I have ever seen for men to be placed.
Chieftain - your books are bursting out of the shelf behind you :). Also I would like to a highlight an incident in your the Sedan counter-attack - while there were many hours wasted thanks to Generals or messengers driving around and getting lost, the Operations Officer had no trouble picking up the phone and getting his orders. Despite this he was forced to wait until he got signed orders. I would suggest it was less of the French being reluctant to use radios, but more an obsession of them getting all the orders documented and in writing. And this obsession is due to the breakdown in trust between the government and the army, with the former suspecting the latter of plotting to overthrow them. This environment of suspicion tends to foster a lot of “cover your ass” behavior. Having your orders meticulously documented is one such CYA behavior, as it lets subordinates point the blame upward in case a plan inevitably goes bad.
Sounds like the Soviets had similar problems, with no one wanting to stick their necks out to take initiative.
Warfare by administrators. Never a good move. Not without signed orders anyway.
Bravo! A great insight
Just to complicate that picture, the French Army was very hot on discipline (they had had serious trouble with troop mutinies in WW1), and requiring written, signed orders at all levels for any action was a return to a Napoleonic C&C model, which also partially explains their apparent distaste for issuing orders by radio. You can't sign a radio conversation, or produce it at your court martial, whereas a written document is incontrovertible evidence of exactly what you were or were not instructed to do.
Tall Troll that’s just crazy! I am watching now a 1938 French movie, “Trois de Saint Cyr”, and am getting a sense of how “hot” was the French army on the discipline. Although, I doubt that German or Soviet armies were different in that regard( discipline) , all that much.
"Who are already a little bit nervous about the security of the penetration." Condoms again.
quite interesting for me, my dad did his degree thesis on the effect French radio doctorine had on both strategic and tactical outcome (he is a former Royal Signals radio tech)
Sounds most interesting, I personally put more emphasis on the fifth column myself and all my voracious research seems to back up this. Best Wishes
David Bell what was his conclusion?
What radio doctrine...? lol. Was ‘lack thereof’ or ‘almost nonexistent’ part of his thesis? The French High Command is infuriating when looking back at the Battle of France. I read part of Gamelin’s reflections in his ‘Servir’ and whilst doing all I can to hold back my bias, I still cannot help but think he is trying to shift blame away from himself.
@@King_George_VI written post WW2 of course. Hindsight?
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Sorry missed this, on the tactical level the French armour could only be regarded as individual tanks, the platoon/company commanders best communications device was a hammer as the other, flags were impossible to see, but this required the commander to go and hammer on the outside of the recipient. on the Strategic level the delays in the operations and the inability to get units to where they wanted them due to such delays (1 Armoured unit iirc spent days with its crews in trucks and tanks on a train receiving orders from different command levels to go to differing locations before they finally found each other, the 2 parts unable to contact each other at any time)
31:55 The Belgians didn't exactly surrender without notice. On May 21st at Ypres the Allied Commanders in chief agreed to launch a counterattack near Arras. To support this the Belgian army took over some positions of the BEF to free up British units. The Allied counterattack didn't achieve much. On the 24th of May, the battle of the Lys river started. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Lys_(1940) The last Belgian reserves were committed. Food and ammo were running low. Most of the Belgian casualties fell during these last 4 days. King Leopold informed London on the 25th that the situation of the Belgian army was very bad. On the 26th the Belgian King informed the French attaché that the Belgian Army has nearly reached the limits of its endurance. Also on the 26th, the Belgian Command informed the British G.H.Q. that: "To-day, May 26th, a very violent attack was launched against the Belgian Army on the Menin-Nevele front, and at the present moment fighting is continuing throughout the whole of the Eecloo region. In the absence of Belgian reserves, we cannot extend the boundary notified yesterday any farther to the right. We are compelled regretfully to say that we have no longer any forces available to bar the way from Ypres. Furthermore, to retreat to the Yser is impossible, since it would, without loss to the enemy, destroy our fighting units even more rapidly than if we stand and fight." On the 27th at about 12.30, the King telegraphed the following message to General Gort: "The Belgian Army is losing heart. It has been fighting without a break for the past four days under a heavy bombardment which the R.A.F. has been unable to prevent. Having heard that the Allied group is surrounded and aware of the great superiority of the enemy, the troops have concluded that the situation is desperate. The time is approaching when they will be unable to continue the fight. The King will be forced to capitulate to avoid a collapse." At about 2.30 p.m. the French liaison authorities were told that: "Belgian resistance is at its last extremity; our front is about to break like a worn bowstring." At 5 p.m., the King decided that an envoy should be sent to the German Command to ask for an armistice between the Belgian Army and the German Army. This decision was at once communicated to the French and British Missions. Two French divisions stationed in Zeeland to the north of the Belgian army were transported to Dunkirk by Belgian trucks to make sure that they wouldn't get cut off from the rest of the French and British forces. *Also, about 1 million refugees + the local population were stuck in the pocket as well. With the military personnel included we are talking at least 1.5 million people if not more. (285.000 at Stalingrad) The Allied plan was to hold at the KW-line. Most of the Belgian supplies were stationed there. A lot couldn't be evacuated in time before the Belgians were ordered to withdraw. So by May 27 the Belgians are seriously running low on supplies. The Official Account of What Happened 1939-1940 www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Belgium/Belgium_1939-40/index.html
I was thinking that if only the French had had better AAA and anti-tank guns they might have won. But it sounds like they could have won with the equipment they had with better command and control. And leadership. This is the kind of situation I think about whenever I contemplate Tolstoy's "No Great Men" theory of history. So often war does come down to officers like Montgomery who train their troops well vs officers who don't seem to have any idea what they're doing. Also, this was excellent and exactly what I wanted to see.
To be fair on them, some of their tanks make the German Big Cats look like rusty, rundown Shermans by comparison. What they needed was comms.
You can check my comment above, but General Alan Brooke was a BEF corps commander in 1939-40 (before become the UK's version of George Marshall). He was raised in France, spoke the language fluently and genuinely loved the country - so you can't accuse him of the common English anti-French feelings. In Brooke's papers/diaries published postwar he comments that he was appalled by the French Army in every regard - it's efficiency, its officers, its discipline and its doctrine. He also saw many weaknesses in the BEF. To him 1940 was not much of a surprise. (In retrospect he was very glad that Hitler did not attack in 1939 - bad weather or no. That says something about one very keen officer's view of the allied forces in 1939.) I've studied that campaign for forty years (I wrote an undergraduate honors thesis on it in 1970 - that shows my vintage. My books have been on the Pacific War, but the events in Europe - East and West- are a magnet to any student of what Max Hastings accurately described as "Armageddon".). I argue that the Germans simply had a better army than did the French, the Brits or the Russians. (In what regard? Check leadership - especially at battalion on down to squad, training, initiative, communications and sky-high morale. And their weapons were certainly up to the task - when inferior, the Germans figured out a way to counter by using assets in which they were superior. Their opponents didn't match them in terms of operational quality until 1944 - and then it was on and off. Nobody will understand the course of WWII if they don't realize that the Wehrmacht was an extremely good instrument of war.) If you look at the course of battle between Army Gp B (northern flank, attacking the Dyle line after destroying Dutch and Belgian forces) you can see that it was almost certainly going to break through despite being significantly outnumbered. So I'd argue that the Germans would have defeated France quickly in 1940 with almost any plan. The self-evident dangers of the Sedan offensive - vulnerable flanks - did not prove crucial. Rommel after 1941 got away with basically ignoring his flanks. Better look at the first four months of Barbarossa - each German thrust from AG North, Center, South had its flank in the air at one time or another. The Wehrmacht (thankfully) ran out of resources in 1941 - but they weren't hit from the flanks until well into the Soviet counter offensive. And despite a truly desperate logistic/morale/weather-terrain situation, the Wehrmacht survived the debacle without a large scale destruction/surrender of it's forces. Indeed Hitler started planning "Case Blue" in February. In AG South during this same period, the Wehrmacht handled things far better and even made gains. I have no affection for Hitler's armed forces - their victory would have been a catastrophe for world civilization that had no parallel. But like in some Greek tragedy, fate gave Hitler a splendid military in 1939 and he knew it - he knew it better than many of his generals. Fortunately for us all, a splendid military is not enough when you fight a war against the entire industrial world. (In what has to be one of history's great ironies, "Appeasement" as followed by Baldwin and Chamberlain (1936-early 39) was anchored on the assumption that a war against Germany then, would be like the Great War. The allies would win in a long war because of attrition backed by superior manpower and resources. However, even if the allies did win, the UK could only lose, and Lenin's and Wilson's heirs triumph. Not a bad prediction when you think about the fate of the UK's economy and the British Empire after 1945, and Stalin's gains. Anyway, when Chamberlain was at Munich, he did not fear a German triumph in a new world war - he feared the war itself, even if another pyrrhic victory. I'm not sure that Daladier was so confident.)
@@Ebergerud Interesting. I can't disagree but I also think a determined counterattack at Sedan (what the Germans would have done) would have cut supplies to the front and reinforced the doubts Hitler and the general staff already had. A panzer breakthrough is really no different than a cavalry raid and yet the French army fell apart when they should have simply responded. Ironically, this was the same kind of increase in the tempo of warfare that Napoleon used to confuse the Austrians. Napoleon (or Berthier) would have known how to respond but the French leadership in 1940 didn't have a clue.
But the French didn't counterattack at Sedan, and at several other places. Why? Because the French Army lacked the leaders and the web of skills required to think quickly and effectively. That's what you expect from a bad army when fighting a good one.
@@Ebergerud No army that hasn't fought for 20 years is going to be good. The military hierarchy exists to quickly evaluate and, if necessary, replace officers in action. But when the army's communication system breaks down, that can't happen. The man at the top was isolated back outside Paris and the corps and army leadership seems to have been dazed and confused. Of course the French government was particularly concerned about the army leading a coup, and that didn't happen.
Didn't Rommel capture a bunch of French with his armoured car by convincing them they were behind German lines when in fact he was well behind French lines?
Yep. Go to 8:00 : kzhead.info/sun/m7OpgbeNrnhqaK8/bejne.html
typical french looking for any excuse to surrender
douchebag patrol FrEnCh SuRrEnDeR fUnNy
@@Loup-mx7ytFrench surrender truth. The men on the lines fighting may have had valor but the high command were entirely incompetent and hamstrung most efforts before the Germans could start shooting. Its a sad truth that the poor reputation for the French in general was deserved as it entirely overshadows the achievements of the enlisted souls and their many accomplishments.
Colonel Overkill - yeah whenever French troops fought under independent command they did pretty good, French Foreign Legion and Mobile Group 100 as examples.
4:52. Can confirm, would work harder to avoid further instructions.
Anything to escape to the fucking 1st Sergeant’s wife’s Family Readiness Group
"An interview without coffee", marvellous phrase.
Never boring sir, not never.
"Not never" means at sometimes it is.
Nice long chat with the chieftain is never boring. Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much for making this. These are aspects of the war that few know about. As always very entertaining in presentation as well. Keep up the great work.
Another great video~ i really appreciate delving in deep on what are generally some of the less explored doctrines and events both.
Love these longer videos, they’re fantastic, and have really helped me overcome misconceptions about ww2 in France.
"interview without coffee" CLASSIC!!!
Old British military phrase!
Robert Lutece no it’s an interrogation
Fantastic extra detail that helps bring it so much more to life. Thank you!
Excellent job Chieftain! Although this topic has been covered ad nauseam over the last almost 80 years, your coverage is fresh and includes stuff I was not aware of such as the air assault by Fieseler Storch.
Good video. There are points in some of your videos I don't always agree with your conclusions, but I understand how you arrive at them and respect the thought process.
Man, I heard about the flak 88 as a young kid from old veterans at church gatherings & now that I’m a WW2 history nut, it’s crazy how much that gun could do & how successful it was. But this is the first time I’ve heard it was designed as a bunker buster.
It wasn’t designed as such, considering it was a Flak gun and not an artillery piece it was first and foremost an AA gun, but since it features a large caliber why not put it on a truck with AP shells
8:50 didn't Sun Tzu say something about "if you're trying to take ground give your enemy an escape route or as if surrounded they'll fight like devils"
Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across.
Understand that Francis Marion aks/The Swamp Fox during the American Revolutionary War used attack on three sides in order to allow the British units an out if they decided to withdraw from combat
@@kemarisite There is an ancient saying, perhaps of Napoleonic origin: To a fleeing enemy, golden bridges
Dying ground he called it.
Tell that to the millions of POWs taken by encirclement
Thank you so much for a very interesting and entertaining presentation. Your ability to present history combined with your dry humor makes your Channel a fun one to watch. Also sir, thank you for your service to our country.
Great insight and info as always. Not bad for a Major!- Retired ARSOF NCO.
As a fellow former Free Clothes Association member about your vintage I'm loving your videos! Your view on the AH stop order is correct I believe. Keep up the good work agus "do réir chlé, go mear - máirseáil".
The BOB was a battle that Luftwaffe had a deadline, win air superiority before the weather turned, the RAF only had to hang on an remain as a force in being.
When Grandpa insists on face to face communication and postal mail, dad doesn't mind calling, and son knows how to text/email (or in their case, use radio). Only the French...
the good ol´ :,, cant hear you - we recieve only bits - transmisssion is disrupted" was old a Day after Marconi invented the damn Radio 1896
I was looking for sleep videos and ended up using this peice of gold, I fell asleep and learned history from my favorite tank KZheadr!
Outstanding insight into the Battle of France! Few battle plans survive first contact with the Enemy. These accounts certainly demonstrate the value of initiative taken by lower-level Frontline troops.
6:19 that sounds like something General Melchett would do
Brilliant and informative, answers so many questions about the French campaign.
Always about these history chats. Keep em commin!
Great lecture, much new information for me. The Battle of France is little covered and deserves much more. Thanks.
This was very interesting, thanks. I hope you make more videos like this one. Cheers
I didn't notice the PTZ-89 model when it's back on the shelf. Cool collection.
Many thanks Chieftain for fascinating commentary on arguably the most tragic battle of World War 2. I wish you'd been slightly kinder to the Char B1 bis, but great job mentioning the excellent kill-to-loss ratio of the French air force- I'd read this somewhere previously too. Pilot training/skill must have been VERY impressive.
Higham hypothesizes that the French success rate came not so much from training or equipment as it did from determination. They were fighting for their homeland. Further, if they got shot down or even just ran out of gas, they would likely land in friendly territory, so they were more willing to push the limit.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks, interesting theory there and also sounds feasible. Still, given the results and the circumstances of being outnumbered and somewhat outclassed in terms of the equipment, their overall skill level must have been impressive. Not that everything they flew was obsolete- the Dewoitine 520 for example was quite impressive! Thanks again for focussing on these morbidly fascinating campaigns/details.
Chieftain, that is a very nice Type 89 self propelled howitzer on your desk. I've built the same kit.
Glad to have THAT cleared up!
As always great and very informative video, thank you very much Chieftain! :)
'Attack with the most brutal energy and with complete disregard for losses.' Those are some remarkably specific orders, I've never heard any like that in my time. Hahaha
You’ve never been in a defensive war against a world military power on your own soil
@@looinrims Not yet. Give it a few more years. :/
That which went unsaid in the last few minutes was that a well-flown P-36 was a better fighter than it was cracked up to be.
Thank you for the details that make a fascinating, and all to human picture.
Excellent presentation!
This video seems to be based on the goodies from Karl Heinz Frieser "The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West". Great book with much information and the standard work for the western campaign!
I think a description of Operation Cerberus (the Channel Dash by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) by KZheadr Drachnifel fits rather well when describing most actions taken by the Germans. Success through refuge in audacity.
His mine impersonation was great.
That is basically The German Way of War.
The parallels between the German Military and American military during WWII are truly staggering when you look at them in depth like that
@@PalleRasmussen It *was* the German way of war. The Allies made sure to castrate Germany after ww2.
@@OtterTreySSArmy I take it that you mean the *difference*? Go read Jörg Muth's "Command Culture".
love your channels
Nice one Mr. Moran. I seem to recall that the very officer occupying the ridge where the French intended to assemble for a counterattack was none other than Black again. The neighbouring division had been delayed, so he did. Auftragstaktik in effect.
Excellent video, thank you a lot !
Nice one Chief
Chieftain, will you do a series of the 11. Panzer Division's series of engagements at the Chir River bend following the encirclement of 6. Armee at Stalingrad?
Always interesting, thank you.
Great Vid as always Chieftain. Would love hear your take tank battles in the 67 and 73 Arab/Israeli wars if you ever want to take a break from WWII tank battles.
Moran essentially recounts the details of the Meuse crossing from a book I read about 4 years ago. The name of the book escapes me but he never references the book. It would be better if he mentioned his sources. Update: I think the book I was referring to was The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West.
Very well done. I learned much.
21:13 the French wouldn't let them waltz in to France. But they would let them swing.
“Interview with out coffee”. Love it
Many mistakes on the French side, but I still believe throwing their Reserve Armies away in a vain effort to save Holland per the Breda Variant was France's lethal strategic mistake. A strong reserve can plug holes created by enemy breakthroughs. Without the reserve, the enemy breakthrough becomes decisive as happened in France. Had the French not adopted Breda, the war in France would've dragged on longer and the French might have had time to learn and overcome their communications and other problems. Anyhow, kudos on a great vid! I do enjoy the Chieftain's take on military history as well as his tank reviews! (BTW, when will you do the Panzer IV? Or the Italian M-13?)
I doubt that they'd have overcomed. Many of the French officers and generals were on the payroll of Germany and sabotaged the French war effort.
@29:90 ~ My old journeyman plumber said, " Do something, even if it's wrong."
In short: Warfare is so complex that even when things are going horribly, something is bound to go right in spite of it all.
An Officer with a map and a compass, The example of needing direction...... Why NCO's keep any military with value operationally. Also shows the lack of value in college. One of your best videos.
That's why we work for a living.
Now, a soviet NCO with a map, a compass, a pair of binoculars, and a radio or field telephone, in a tree somewhere on the eastern front, that's the most lethal threat on the field... because you can bet your sorry as that sucker's got a whole artillery division on the other end of that wire/radio...
Another rule to live by as an officer is, “If your top NCO doesn’t know at least twice as much as you, you in deep shit.” Lol
I guess you did use "the Blitzkrieg legend" from Friesser a lot for this fascinating video. Are there other books you can recomend about this campaign?
The discrepancy between official French figures and real figures on air victories derives from the strange French victory registration system within the Armée de l'Air at that time. If several French aircraft took part in shooting down an enemy aircraft, they would all be credited with a victory, thus leading to an inflation in victory figures. The most recent French research on the issue concluded to about 450 victories in actual combat, for the loss of almost 1,100 aircraft, this last number including all possible reasons for losing an aircraft (accident, ground attack, etc)
Glory be, an explanation for Hitler's order to halt the panzer advance that makes perfect sense backed up by carefully derived facts. As usual The Chieftain's hard research gives us an unparalleled commentary, careful, complete and delivered with a delightful Irish accent. Thanks
Appreciate the complement :)
I hate people who think all they do is surrender, they protected British troops in Dunkirk and lost many men.
Pity they did fuck all in September '39 when all that was standing between them and the Ruhr was a few weak divisions.
The shame of 1940 might have been less if prewar propaganda hadn't touted the French Army as the best in the world.
@@PolakInHollandThat would have meant war with the USSR as well as Germany.
@@bradyelich2745 Agreed. The Italians put three armored divisions into the war (three more than the Japanese), and their tanks were better. British propaganda portrayed the Italians as cowardly.
@@eze417 Lol British propaganda? Britain said what they saw. But German propaganda blamed everyone but themselves, as usual.
Very interesting,.. Thank you.
Alanbrooke was not only a major participant he was also an important commentator. In his postwar papers he discusses his utter shock at the lack of preparation and spirit he saw in French forces upon his arrival in 1939. (He was not much kinder to the BEF.) Important to point out that Brooke spent much of his youth in France and loved the country and its people - those were not feelings often found among English offices. Brooke's take on 1940 was that France lost because it had a bad army, and they faced a very good one. On paper, the allies were in very good shape considering the fact that German rearmament was no where near complete. In practice they were steam rolled by the Germans - I don't think that campaign was even close. I think if you look at what the Wehrmacht did from 1939 - 1942, it's impossible not to conclude that they had stolen the march on other military forces in the world during they 1930s. It's almost impossible to find a major misstep made by the Wehrmacht and master strokes became almost routine. One can never tell, but I think the Germans would have won the French campaign regardless of their plan of attack - they knew what they were doing and their enemies did not. And it took a long time for the Wehrmacht opponents to gain a position of anything like equality in the operational end. (I think this happened in 1944 and spectacular victories by the Red Army and (on and off) the western allies resulted.)
The thing about the early years is that the Germans were able to use their strengths, tactical aircraft, well trained and flexible leadership, modern communications so they can react fast and compensate for mistakes but the short length of the campaign and the use of rail lines and captured French supplies hid a lot of their faults. German industry had been gutted to allow rearmament so had no depth and spare production, transport planes were the red headed stepchild of the Luftwaffe, the army barely had enough trucks to remain functional even when they stripped the French and Czech industries bare, they had no colonies so they had missed the revolution in long range large capacity aircraft that could be switched over to producing bombers, theyd missed the whole technological research revolution that allowed the allies to build radar sets so small they could fit inside a shell, they didnt have a functioning oil industry so that couldn't be militarized. Basically they were expert sprinters but once the contest turned into a marathon they couldn't keep up.
Great stuff! I'm old enough to remember a time in which you could watch somewhat similar content on the history Channel.. back when men were still men. Those were the days.
whoa i didn't know the great war guy also had a channel for ww2. That's awesome.
Interesting as always, look all your nice Treasures in the room. GO ARMY
4:40. Rommel would have argued: “Yes. Absolutely.” But since he was one of those junior commanders and he paints a picture of 7th Panzer Division all but winning the campaign single handedly, that’s hardly surprising.
The WW2 channel that's my new home .
Would you make a video talking about the 51st Highland division and the retreat the St Valery?
I wonder if you could make a similair indepth analyses of the war in The Netherlands, May 1940. I'm getting a bit tiresome of ( mainly..) Americans mocking the Dutch for ' fighting a bit for only 5 days before surrendering". We have a country you can cycle trough in 1 day, and that's what the germans had planned. It didn't work out that way, even when we had no tanks, no easely defendable terrain, and an overall obsolete army. Btw, first PoW's arriving in England were Fallschirmjaegers captured around The Hague, and shipped out to the UK.
Honestly, I would need good English language sources. I'm not sure I have any.
That’s the sad thing about WW2 knowledge in America. Most people here know that America was in the war, didn’t know what the eastern front was or thinks it’s enemy at the gates. It’s always Omaha beach or Iwo Jima or Pearl Harbor. And then because of it, people complain when a WW2 game doesn’t have the Americans or anything American
You have answered yourself. Not trying to mock the dutch further but if you had no tanks, an obsolet army and no defendable Terrain and still you delayed the German Advance , then it was just a healthy potion of fear of death that prevented the germans of going faster. After all it is still humans fighting and not the figures from the briefing room.
the dutch did a great job but could of of lasted longer than 5 days. they chose to stop fighting to save civilians. funny enough Rotterdam was bombed due to slow coms. After the dutch evcutated all the gold, royal family, navy and as many men they could they left the chose to surrender to the army commander. He surrendered to spare the major cities from bombings. Issue was the raid on rotterdam was in route and could not be called off. All so the kingdom of the Netherlands never surrendered. It was specifically stated only the forces fighting in the Netherlands where giving up. Not the country or forces that escaped or where in the colonies.
_"Americans mocking the Dutch for ' fighting a bit for only 5 days before surrendering"_ Implying Americans would care enough about the dutch to mock them.
Question: in the miniseries Band of Brothers you only see armored units about twice in combat and I just wanted to know whether that was a common thing that the average Soldier not really fight alongside armored units or was it just a paratroopers thing where they didn’t often get armored support, was it some other reason or was this whole thing just an inaccuracy?
A little bit of all. Mechanized and armored divisions have their own infantry for a reason: that infantry usually is better trained to operate with armor support. Paratroopers are naturally more likely to be on their own and used as light infantry, although there have been various attempts to develop airdropped combat vehicles (BMD series of vehicles, M551 Sheridan was pushed in that role too) with limited effectiveness. As for Band of Brothers, it was the first of its generation and gets a lot wrong about tactics on various levels. The infamous 'Tiger at Nuenen' scene in no way reflects how the British would have responded to the call that there was a Tiger just around the corner, but it sure does make for great drama.
Interesting facts. How do you get those information? May I ask what your resources are?
No more computer screen!
In thes “ lessen-known details” I miss the fast advance of the 7th army all the way to the Netherlands to the river Reusel - Tilburg area. There was a clash between 4th Dragon Portes with AMR-33 and German forces. Can this be a subject for a later video ?
Really informative video although the audio is really quiet (same as in the previous vlog) - please consider using better mic or something.
Very interesting… I love this history..
Just read Gregory Blaxland's "Destination Dunkirk" really in depth look at the performance of the BEF and the command problems of the French using telephones in a mobile champagne.
Is there any book with more details about the short-barreled Panzer IV knocking out several tanks in quick succession? I'd be interested to know in more detail what exactly happened. Things like which units were involved, how were they all positioned, and which type of tanks did the French have in this exchange.
I have to admire the German officers fighting so valiantly against their own command to buy their subcommanders time to win the war. Mad lads.
I guess I'm coming a little late for the context for the WW2 channel. But I am playing all of my realistic tactical and operational wargames in chronological order and have just started the Battle of France, so this is perfect.
Played Panzer Leader yet?
Now wasn't the "No plan survives contact with the enemy" coined by one of those commanders to choise selective deafness towards OK-Heer? ;)
Heinz Guderian specifically
Have you read Nigel Hamilton's three part biography on Monty? The battle for France is fascinating.
A very interesting video.
Dismounted land nav........spoken like a true tanker. As an Infantryman I always wondered at the merit of finding a lone stake in the middle of Fort Benning! As opposed to say finding a squad of enemy soldiers or perhaps a major terrain feature. Well done though. I knew the Germans had some difficulties during the invasion of France but in most books it is not covered in such detail. The French and the use of messengers demonstrates the old fashioned thinking of many of their....lets face it.......very old General Officers.
I tell you, one day I'm going to see "Lone stake identified" as one of the CCIR items on the noticeboard in the TOC.