Shermans vs Panthers: How Patton's Third Army Crushed Hitler's Best Panzers at Arracourt?
Join & Support The Channel: / @factbytes
The Battle of Arracourt took place between US and German armoured forces near the town of Arracourt, Lorraine- France, between 18 and 29 September 1944 during the Lorraine Campaign of the second World War.
What made this tank battle unique was that a German tank force comprised mostly of Panther tanks was defeated by an American tank force equipped mostly with 75 millimeter Sherman tanks.
The Battle was the largest tank battle the US had conducted up to that point in history and saw the American forces brilliantly destroy two Panzer Brigades and additional units from two Panzer divisions.
Copyright fair use notice
All media used in this video is used for the purpose of education under the terms of fair use.
All footage and images used belong to their copyright holders.
#m4sherman #arracourt #tankbattle
My dad was a tracked vehicle mechanic with the 4th Armored Division and got critically wounded in the battle of Arracourt. Through a mixup of swapped dog tags he was listed as KIA. He remained in a coma for over a year. While in an Army hospital he was not expected to recover from the coma and was used as a training aid for things such as x-rays. One day however he did wake up to a young nurse checking in on him. He said, "Well, hello there!" The poor nurse, accustomed to the many days of silence from dad was so startled she fell out in a dead faint. Dad said he always felt bad about that and a few days before he died said he was going to get to apologize again to her. Slipping back into a coma from the ravages of cancer he passed on his 70th birthday in 1979. Due to the countless x-rays he endured he was supposedly sterile. My older brother and I proved that he beat the odds again. Cheers Terry
Remarkable. Your dad sacrificed himself in many ways. Thanks for sharing!
The real tragedy of WW2 was that nothing those fought and died for actually happened All we got was illegal wars and keep away health care
GREAT story! Thanks for sharing that!
Was the nurse your mom?
@hoalanho LOL! No. He probably would have done better with her though. He did marry a war bride though. A brit that came home with someone else. Cheers Terry
My Dad was a tank Commander of a Mk4 Sherman in WW2, he fought through Italy, including Monte Cassino. Previously he had fought the Italians and then the Germans in Greece until we got our arse kicked to Crete and then kicked again by the German Fallschirmjager. He then fought Rommels troops until he was wounded in Operation Crusader! He then became a Tank Commander with the 2nd NZEF 20th Battalion; a famous Battalion!
A big thank you to him from a Greek
If Freyberg had committed his reserves at Maleme airfield, it would have been a great victory but he bottled it and lost the Allies the Island of Crete.
👍👍👍
@@mac2626 You may well be right Mac, my own dad has said as much and he was at Meleme airfield, he had two Gerries as Prisoner and used them as a shield to get over the end of the runway, a sniper tried to get him, got the Bren Gun Mag on his chest and the whole Mag exploded, Dad survived and after that the Germans were a lot more compliant. My dad fought with Charles Upham, both were in the famous 20th Battalion; a South Island Battalion from New Zealand. My Mum and Dad, along with Charles Charlie Uphman and his wife Molly caught up with the Gerries in Munich in 1981 for the 40th Anniversary of Crete. The Fallschirmjager gave the Kiwis a great welcome. My dad fought them twice, once in Crete and then again in Monte Cassino. My Parents had a great night and the hospitality was great. They all missed fallen comrades.....war is so stupid... Putin has learnt nothing from WW2 with his insanity in Ukraine, Putin is the new Nazi I'm afraid!
@@robertmiller2173 Great story and yes , Putin is a mad dog that needs to be put down.. hopefully someone close to him can get it done before all of Russia and Europe is a war zone.
Dad was 4th Armored. He was in the CCB, which Abrams commanded, later in the war. He saw it all, from Utah Beach, the Normandy breakout and Operation Cobra,to Arracourt, to the relief of Bastogne, the liberation of the Ohrdruf concentration camp and the link up with the Red Army. The Fourth made a lot of history.
One year my friend I know a man who fought with the Australian Army at Sidi Barani Dec1940 Greece Syria Tobruk El Alamein over to New Guinea 20 battles there and then home in 1945 almost six years
My uncle was in the Army Air Corps as a door gunner in B-17 Flying Fortress in missions over Germany. Dad was a merchant marine that was at Guadalcanal. I grew up and heard many war stories over a deer hunting campfire of many different engagements on sea, land and air and was captivated by their heroism and adventures. I saw the men showing each others shrapnel wounds and sharing stories. I respect all those that signed up and joined the war on the front or as support. It was a time of need and they stepped up. Thank you guys.
That deserves the biggest award there is for a story off courage and ability.
Funny my grandfather only talked about the war once with me. His story was of killing some POWS a few days after he landed on Juno beach it was not him who did the killing it was witnessing the killing.
My father served in the 14th Armored Division and had one brief encounter with General Patton. As the division was moving through northern France, preparing to cross the Rhine, they passed a knot of officers observing their progress. Some days before, my dad had liberated a large copper hip bath from the ruins of a German headquarters. My father was a fastidious man, and was looking forward to taking a long soak, and had tied the hip bath down on the back of his Sherman. As his tank slowly moved past the officers, they spied the shiny copper tub, and pointed it out to General Patton, who stood up from his Jeep and shouted, "Get that god-damned tub off my tank!" Patton's order was followed, of course, and my dejected father wouldn't get a bath until the end of the war.
While stationed at Ft Knox I went to an Armor conference. Patton's son, also a General officer, was the guest speaker. He mentioned that his father related to him that artillery won the war and provided an anecdote that a formation of 100 German tanks massed and attacked. After a US DIVARTY 3 FFE mission on the enemy, only two German tanks were operable. This is why artillery is called King of Battle. Infantry is called the Queen of battle because the queen tells the King where to put his balls.
I served 3 years with 1st Battalion, 37th Armor at Katterbach, Germany 1971-1974. The same unit that relieved 101st Airborne At Bastogne. Unfortunately, we were just there to slow down the Russians if they came through the Hof Gap. Courage Conquers! Best Job I ever had. 3 “Hots”, a Cot, and 2 four button suits. Mickey Mouse boots and trigger finger gloves. A 50 caliber is a heavy son of a bitch. The sleeping bags kept you warm when out on maneuvers at Graf, Hohenfels, or Tennenlohe. I had a great heater in my APC. It also worked as a stove to heat up C-ratios. 50 years ago. We were all young and dumb.
If you were fighting in 74' you missed the whole world war by thirty or so years.
Everyone tends to forget that who fires first tends to win in tank battles. The defender usually gets to fire first. In most battles it was the M4 attacking dug in Panzers. Hence the higher casualties of American tankers. But as you can see in the battle of Aracourt, with the M4's defending the carnage was the other way.
Makes sense. I've heard so many stories about how inferior the Shermans were, but I've always thought that may be true, but exaggerated. German tnaks may have been better in a tank on tank only battles, but as the Germans themselves demonstrated early in the war, that's NOT what war is all about. Allied air power and combined arms warfare in general carried the day.
@Justin Time the Sherman could penetrate any German tank from the side. The most numerous tank the Sherman went up against was the Panzer IV and it had not problem penetrating those. The Sherman could not penetrate the Panther or Tiger from the front at long ranges. However, in a closing fight, where the Panther is advancing through fog, the 75mm was able to achieve penetrating shots. Because of Speed and radios, the Sherman was able to pin any number of Panthers down and achieve those flanking shots, not to mention the 90mm armed tank destroyers that could be used to penetrate anything the Germans had. I recommend you check out the chieftain's chat on this topic. As to the T62 hull down with a M1A2 clearing a berm at close range (the underbelly of the M1A2 exposed) you would have a kill shot, every time.
During the last 2 years of WW2 this rule of thumb was placed on hold by the German heavy tanks. They required tactics, movement and a lot of shooting to take down. Thankfully they were few in number. The standard Panzer 4 vs M4 this rule of thumb still applies, but During the Battles for Lorraine it was the only time that there were more Panthers than Panzer 4s. The he who shoots first wins rule comes into its own During the early cold war periods as first shot first hit ratios really climbs fast over WW2 statistics. Most doctrines of WW2 frowned upon firing on the move as it greatly diminished your first hit probability. There were field commanders that preached against stopping. This was to reduce losses and uses another rule. He who puts the most lead down range wins the fire fight.
@@jamesevans886 there weren't enough heavies around to matter. The heavies had high attrition rates just getting to the battle. A king tiger's gear box was horrendous. The most successful "tank" the German's had, and the one that killed more allied tanks than anything else was not a tiger, kin tiger, or panther. It was the Stug. Dug in, just waiting for fresh targets.
@@magnashield8604 Thanks for the reply. When Patton's 3rd Army moving north for the battle of the Bulge on a bend in the road a single dug in STuG held Patton up for nearly 6 hours. While the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank at the time nearly everyone else more correctly classified the near 50 ton Panther as a heavy. Being the 3rd most produced WW2 German tank please include that in your considerations. The German Armoured divisions were rare about half of establishment level but at least a third of the operational tanks where Panthers, usually the STUG was in greatest number followed by the Panzer 4. With the exception of the battles for Lorraine with the Panzer brigades where the Panther out numbered the Panzer 4. The STuG and its variants is my favourite assault gun in WW2. My next favourite after that is the Panzer 4 /70 tank hunter which could be seen as a 2nd generation STuG. Again thanks for the reply as so few do.
wow,, my dad a Master SGT. 4th Armored Division,, bronze star,nearly froze to death at Bastogne. Thanks Pop
The Battle of Aauracourt never fails to impress me. I know the mobility of the Sherman was excellent for its time but with respect to the armor and and armament of the Sherman when compared to the German tanks it's like taking a knife to a gunfight. Patton and his subordinates did a hell of a job being seriously out gunned and outnumbered. Creighton Abrams was a hell of a tank Commander under Patton. Think it was maybe James Woods hard against the Germans there. Major props to third army.
Hardly. Sherman tanks had many soft advantages that doesn't show up on hard stats like a fast turret traversal, good crew ergonomics, fast target acquisition due to stabilizer and gunner wide FoV sight, etc. In reality Sherman tanks traded against Panthers at a 1:1.1 ratio, which is very impressive when you consider panther is a much heavier and more expensive tank and Germany was mostly on the defensive. Also most German tanks at the time were panzer IVs and various assault guns which were strictly worse than the Sherman tanks.
They also had a lot of tank destroyers .
Sherman’s could fire while moving, Germans had to stop and fire. The US tank ammo was also better. Many German tank ammo were dudes or were even dangerous to fire.
@@gamesguy Check the stats, almost half tehGerman armored losses were caused by P-47's. I think the US was very glad to have preety much uncontested air superiority at the time.
@@milsimgamer this is complete nonsense. You made it up. Actual data shows less than 3% of tank losses were to aircraft.
From my understanding the tank destroyers played a large part in the battle. Though thinly armored and an open turret, they were fast, highly maneuverable and carried a hell of a punch
Germany had tank destroyers too And the 88 mm gun could take out just about anything the allies had It's just the Americans and Russians had more
@@waynehewett4017 Not only that but the German tank destroyers were slow and limited, Most had very little traverse on their guns making it so they had to be almost perfectly lined up to make the shot. They only made 800 of the Jagdpanzer IV's, Not enough to kill 48,000 Sherman mark 4's. Why Hitler refused to get behind the Stug III development is a surprise because it did very well against allied armor.
@@cheswick617 Hitler was a nut case , if he had keep out of the development and planned of the armour and let people do thier job They would have made alot more of the armour that worked and was cheaper to make But against 50 thousand Sherman's and 70 thousand T 34 s Plus all the other armour plus no control of the skies I don't think making more tanks would have made any difference especially in 43 44, and 45
@@waynehewett4017 Yep and they worked!
@@waynehewett4017 they didn't have the fuel necessary for more tanks to begin with. Hell a report from the Germans own ministry even suggested demotorization in order to make up for fuel shortages
My late Father served with Patton through the entire world war 2.he spoke proudly of Patton and his time serving under him.
Patton is another great American unfairly maligned by his enemies and (even then) an all too willing media … Read Killing Patton for a good intro to the man and the suspect way he died
Patton had all he needed to fight. How would he fair against a enemy with the same supplies, weapons and support. Not so well. Look at what happened to Monty.
@@chelseamartin-ub7fq What’s your point?
Saying the Panther could penetrate the Sherman's armor at 2000 meters is meaningless. While that meant something on the vast grasslands of the Russian steppes where kills could be made at great distances the terrain in the west was different and the average distance on the long side was 350 to 750 meters. For this reason tactics were much different, and great numbers of Allied tanks worked together at close range to take out the German heavies.
Not to mention the M4 was reliable and 87% of all the ammunition they consumed was of the HE variety. That HE round was excellent by the way, much more effective than the HE rounds of the high velocity guns, including our own 76mm.
Exactly.
The western allies still lost around 3 tanks for every 1 German tank lost in combat 1944/45. Around 50% of German armour losses were not to direct combat. Mean combat range in Western Europe was 850 metres.
@@lyndoncmp5751 And how many Allied tanks weren't lost to direct combat? Everyone always does that when plugging away for their favorite fanboyism, like all the guys who swear that the Germans made the best fighter's, they present the total number of 8th Air Force bombers lost and try to attribute them all to German fighter's, they never subtract the ⅓rd that were lost to accidents and then also subtract number shot down by flak, but when you bring up an honest number like the 56th Fighter Group shooting down German fighter's at a rate of 8 to 1 in their P47's they always try to come up with some nonsense excuses like the Germans not having any experienced pilots, yea, they didn't after mid 1944 because of the 56th Fighter Group having shot down all their experienced pilots by D-Day. I spent Easter weekend of 1984 when I was stationed in Germany at the home of a German family that the father was a tanker in WW2, we were told never to bring up the war with the German people because it was considered bad manners but after finding out I was a crewman on an armored vehicle that guy was just tickled pink and was acting like we were fraternity brothers, the Schnapps flowed, I still have a hangover from that one, so I didn't think it'd be inappropriate to ask if what I'd heard growing up about the German tanks being so much better than ours was true, he literally balked at the suggestion, his very words were "I'll tell you what was superior, the number of Sherman's is what was superior!!! When there's only one or two of you and 10 to 15 Sherman's come rolling over the hill it was only going to end one way and we knew it!!!". He said they spent most of their time running from the advancing Allies and when they got pushed back across the border into Germany him and his crew made an agreement, as soon as they ran out of fuel or ammo they'd abandon the thing and look for the first American unit to surrender to that they could find, and he attributed the fact that he was alive in 1984 to them having done just that, running from the advancing Allies then abandoning their tank and surrendering. You hear the stories about Sherman crews having "Tigerphobia", well take it from someone who got it straight from the horses mouth the German tank crews had Shermanphobia just the same, and the one's that didn't died.
"Saying the X could penetrate the Xs armor at 2000 meters is meaningless." Said no tanker ever. The excuses for the Sherman are reaching new heights. Short ranges were common in the US sector of Normandy, which faced very few panzers until the later stages of the campaign anyway. The ranges were longer in the Commonwealth sector, which faced the vast majority of the panzers. Once the war moved into Germany, the landscape opened up and long range combat was very common.
It has been some time now but I met a 4th Armored Div soldier at my church, He told me how they marched/drove their armor to relieve Bastogne where my Uncle Sargent Edward Sayles was serving with the 101st Airborne during the Battle.
I grew up on a military base, did the ROTC thing, served in the Gulf War as a civilian safely behind the lines. I had a father and several uncles who served in WW2. Not all made it home. Those who did had unseen wounds for the rest of their lives in addition to some purple hearts As an old man now, I'm only now capable of their hardships, sacrifice, and sometimes broken relationships and lives. They have all passed on. The least I can do now is stand for the anthem, respect our flag, and love the greatest country in human history ... and support the current warriors who risk everything to uphold the traditions of those that served before them, and their families, spouses, children, siblings and parents whom often waited word of their warriors, not knowing.
Thank you for this well-organized presentation of a battle that isn't widely discussed. It's great to see Sherman tanks dishing it out for a change.
It seems nobody has noticed this was done with an artificial voice.
@@GeekBoy03 Because it sounds like a human narrator except maybe with more distinct pronunciation and cadence.
The weather was a great leveller. No good having the ability to kill Shermans at 2000 yards if you cannot see them
Let's be honest here. Germany had little air support and the Allies had massive air power
and?
Germans had much more better tanks which was a huge advantage so??
@@user-zl9qk8jn9u for every German tank there were several allied tanks. So, they could hit the German armor from all directions, but yes they were superior in firepower and protection. They were just outnumbered.
My father, Captain Arthur C Anderson, was in the 37 Armor Regiment under the direct command of Creighton Abrams.
6 tank kills from a Piper Cub, outstanding!
Airpower definitely proved to be superior. Look at the Bismarck, stopped by an outdated Fairy Swordfish bi plane
I'm calling Bulshit on that! There is no way an airplane with a shaped-charge firing infantry weapon was more successful in one mission than were most actual purpose-built Allied CAS planes with the same kind of weapons. If you said he scared the Panzer 5's into retreating after seeing a forward observation aircraft light up a fuel truck then maybe but this??? Nah.
@@KCJAM1 top armor is thin. that is why modern anti-tank weapons go over the armor and blast down.
@@groofromtheup5719 Okay. Here we go. Firstly, thank you for the information on top armor. I am well-versed in the armor makeup for tanks from their first appearance on the battlefield to today and I was hoping the "shaped-charged" component of the bazooka round would be enough to explain my skepticism regarding this claim. Yes modern, laser-guided or wire-guided projectiles can be programmed to attack up and then straight down on the thinner, flatter top armor but since a shaped charge infantry weapon fired by an airplane, jerry-rigged to use these inaccurate weapons has a snowballs chance in hades to hit the target AND land flat enough for the shape-charge to effectively deploy (due to distance, angle of attack, lack of a target reticle, etc.) I doubt this plane outperformed Typhoons, P47's and really any other CAS purpose-built aircraft on a single mission like this. In fact, when the militaries went to confirm actual CAS kill claims against tanks the numbers were far less impressive than reported. Believe what you want but the facts belie the claims. That said, this guy had balls the size of the planet Mercury even trying this crap in a sloooooow, unarmored, observation aircraft
Tank ace?
Good video. In reading the 2 volume set of The Patton Papers, he states many times that tanks should not fight tanks. Rather, tanks work with infantry to gain ground and air support and tank destroyers destroy enemy tanks. A great read also is his battle diary book "War as I Knew It", published after his death in 1946 by his widow Beatrice Ayer Patton.
yes true... the Combined Arms Army will win the day, rather than pure tank to tank battle.
Late 1991, near an Air Force base in the US: A group of A-10 pilots are telling each other stories of destroying tanks in Iraq. Nearby, an aged grey-haired man in a well-worn leather jacket smiles into his scotch.
did the scotch taste good
Knowing they had shot British Challenger 1s?
Why were they bragging over a turkey shoot ? That's why the old man was laughing.
The old man was reminded of his time in his P47
Roughly at minute 4:20, the description of the M4 tank reminded me of the movie, "Kelly's Hero's" and the character Oddball strategizing on how to take on the Tiger Tank.
Oddball The Greatest 👍
Awesome movie. And that character is so funny!
@@josemonge4604 WOOF WOOF!
'To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.' Gotta love that movie! If you can't find it? Make a deal ! A deal deal!
This was also at a time Patton's crews were an experienced lot and a well-oiled machinery and the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel for crews and were forced to cut down on training to scramble whatever they could to fight a two-front war. The experienced crews were either dead, busy fighting on the Eastern Front or had to command these kids. Napoleon faced the very same problem following his 1812 campaign in Russia. While he could largely replace the losses in manpower he most definitely couldn't remedy the lack of experience in his fresh troops as the whole backbone of his battle-hardened and experienced Grande Armée lost 380,000 men by the time he left Russia. Many of those had been fighting with him since the glory days of 1800-1809. The point being. Inexperienced soldiers won't perform too well against seasoned veterans. Good equipment or not.
Reading one of the comments, the "grizzled veterans" of the Fifth Panzer Army were the remnants of the 11th and 21st Panzer Divisions. The "inexperienced" troops were the newly constituted panzer brigades which had no business fighting the veteran Third Army. Had von Mantueffel, the 5th Panzer Army commander, had his way he would have dissolved the panzer brigades and distributed the troops amongst the veteran but depleted panzer divisions.
"No business fighting the veteran Third Army." Stupid comment: you field the army you have not the imaginary one you wish you had. Should Hasso have retreated and refused to fight? He did his best with what he had.
@lee wood you are right but the "stupid one" was Adolf Hitler since he was the "stupid one" who created the independent panzer brigades instead of funneling the men and equipment into the panzer divisions. Hasso von Manteuffel used the brigades but the Americans chewed them up and wiped out a lot of tanks the Germans could have used better. From the historical perspective, we are lucky Hitler wasted those resources since they helped hasten the German defeat in the West.
@@leewood331 Not a stupid comment at all. What Manteuffel feared came to pass and those Panthers were wasted. It was Manteuffel who later broke through in the Battle of the Bulge whereas the better equipped but more poorly trained SS formations largely failed.
Agreed. The Title is click bait. Pattons formations did not defeat ''Hitlers best Panzers at Arracourt'' , rather the shattered and reformed remnants of previous fighting.
@andrew woodhead i thank you sir!
Very good history video! Well covered in detailed!
Agreed. But, I would have liked some graphics to illustrate exactly what the tactics were. It was hard to tell in the fog.
My grandfather was part of Patton's 3rd battalion!!! He went from the end of africa into italy and stayed till the end! He was definitely there! Thank you for posting this
A battle where the American tank destroyers were used in the way they were intended doctrine.
One of the few chances for such doctrine to be used, as it was arguably poorly conceived in the first place. Only the combination of fog/German lack of recce resources and poorly trained German personnel allowed the 'high mobility/shoot-and-scoot' US Tank Destroyer tactics to really come into their own, and only then with disproportionately high losses.
Shoot and scoot wasn't really how they were intended to be used. The speed was important so they could rapidly secure important terrain while laying in ambush. Only the he'll cat had the acceleration needed to attempt shoot and scoot.
@@alfnoakes392 Amazing how everytime the subject is a German defeat guy's like you list a bunch of excuses, never mind the fact that everyone was fighting in the same exact conditions and that the Germans being on the defense had knowledge of the terrain and the lay of the land as opposed to the Allies who were in a land and it's terrain for the first time, it's always easier to defend an area you already occupy as opposed to advancing across it. They just plain got their asses handed to them, no two ways about it.
Duke Craig, Its still true that the panzer brigades at Arracourt were green, poorly trained and didn't even have any organic recon elements. Panzer Brigade 111 didn't even receive its Panthers to train on until the 5th to 7th September. What can you learn in just over a week? The panzer brigades were desperately flawed and hastily formed units in an attempt to get some armoured units to the front to plug the gaps while the panzer 'divisions' were being rebuilt after the losses of Normandy and Bagration.
@@BlitkriegsAndCoffee the hellcats gun good depression also played a part
The best video I have ever watch concerning WW2.I have never seen so many burning enemy tanks before.
Most of the video is taken in Normandy in the summer of 44, not at Arracourt
12:26 bazooka joes plane was found and restored. it was a flying club shared plane. when restored and rededicated the daughter of the pilot was there. its on display some where
I'm actually happy to hear that.
My dad was radar technician in England during the war. He was a chief petty officer.
Great vid...the guy in the Piper Cub launching rockets was new to me.
This history video is very good. I believe adding animated maps at appropriate points to make the progress of the battle more clear would make it a great historical video. Please give it a try.
Reading these stories of Patton make me smile. That man was made for this war, and was the key force behind American tank doctrine. Such a shame he lost his cool a few times.
Had a next door neighbor who died last year at age 106. He served in Patton s 3rd armyin Ww2. When I asked him about. Patton once, he said. Patton was an aho,but a pm so a genius. He said no other general could've pulled off what Patton did during the battle of the bulge
Years ago I got to talk briefly with a 3rd army veteran, a customer at the store I was working at. I asked him his opinion of Patton, and he said, trying to quote from memory, "Patton ran us hard, but with Patton we got shit done," his face beamed with pride as he said it. I could tell from how he said it he probably resented how hard he pushed them at the time, but as the results of their hard work became apparent with so many victories, he came to really respect and appreciate the method to Patton's madness. He was one of a kind.
"Lost his cool" is part of the whole package to get things done.
Patton was a sumari like warrior and had little respect for people he viewed as cowards. He didn't ask his troops to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. When serving with General Pershing in Mexico he had a gunfight with Mexican bandits in a coral.
Actually he had very little to do with the development of American armor doctrine. Adna Chaffee was far more influential than Patton in the development of American armor doctrine. Patton got famous primarily because he swore a lot in front of reporters and he was in the right place at the right time more often than not. He also had a good eye for talent when it came to his staff officers.
I've read 3rd Army history; Pattons biographies and 4th Armoured history. Patton was a genius. He let his senior officers have the freedom to make their own Tactical decisions on the fly. He was a believer in Mission Command. I also own Patton's Air Force book. His relationship with General Otto Weyland of 19th Tactical Air Force was legendary. The best use of combined armoured and air power of World War 2. His relationship with General John Wood commander of 4th Armoured is legendary. Wood was nicknamed "Tiger Jack" because when Patton and Wood argued. Wood would pace in front of George while they barked and roared at each other funny considering they were close friends. Patton and 3rd Army have a rich and colorful history. "A SOLDIERS LIFE" goes in depth into why 3rd Army was so effective. It's loss ratios showed its sophistication in battle planning to control casualties to a low standard. In fact as something little known it was a self sustaining enterprise with a General of finance.
I have a book on that battle which is more detailed, but the video hits all the high points. Well done!
Great Presentation. Well worth the Learning & Watch. Thanks.
The M-4 Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank. The Sherman was not designed originally to fight other tanks That was the job of the M10 and M18 tank destroyers. Two my Uncles were infantry in the ETO. They both said the Sherman’s were great supporting them. Both my uncles were each decorated for taking out a German tank, (I heard this from their VFW buddies ) turns out in my one Uncles platoon a dozen men were decorated for taking German tanks using non traditional methods.
A 76 mm gun was quite able to knock out any tank. Even a tiger. It was a serious gun. Shermans were designed on the chassis of the Grant, because that chassis existed and there was no time to dev another, and this meant mass production would not be delayed. The chassis also way highly customizable for variants needed. They had to be able to fit on US trains, and transport easily packed together on ships. Also they had to have great gas mileage and speed, work in all weather, and be easily repairable in the field. All these things meant that a dependable tank with anti troop and anti tank ability was available in large quantity for deployment - where it as needed, when it was needed. In Normandy the US had by bad luck mostly Sherman's with 75mm guns, not 76, and the unexpected hedgerow country to move through. Basically in the case of the Sherman 76mm, whomever got the first shot off would be the likely winner of the encounter. Notably the reputation of the Sherman as a 'firetrap' is a myth. Any tank hit would burn. The high number of burned Shermans was due to the fact that the Germans would burn any knocked out tank, to ruin it and avoid it being repaired. Also US crews were supported by the fact that Shermans had dedicated spring loaded escape hatches for each crew member, which greatly increased ones chances of survival when needed. The American crews did much better surviving knocked out tanks than their contemporaries because of this.
Brave fellows
The Sherman was basically a Swiss Army knife. It was capable of doing a variety of jobs to support the war effort. Thats what made it a great tank.
bruh, that was a common myth, technically, if they were meant to be an infantry support tank, what the hell they do if the German tank firing at the infantry? run away and call the HQ to send the TDs? also remember that the M3 75mm on the M4 was basically the same caliber brought from the M3 GMC tank destroyer
@@trantuananh7541 Thank you, I'm really not sure where people get this idea that the Sherman was never meant to fight tanks. Why would we design a tank with a powerful gun and not have it fight other tanks. While it's true it was primarily used in the doctrine of supporting infantry it was still designed to take out enemy tanks when needed, most notably the Panzer IV which the 75mm/76mm were great at.
What’s the difference?…by this time Pattons army was a well groomed , victorious well oiled war machine led by a decisive general…..by this time the German army was a shadow of its victorious 1941 version…..also allied air superiority was total.
Quite right. By 1944 Germany was also getting severe shortages in trained troops while fuel stocks were barely enough to reach the divisions much less be enough for sustained offensives. The vast Eastern Front ate up most of Germany's supply chain and manpower. Speaking of the Eastern Front, following far higher than expected casualties for the *Germans* in the winter of 1941 the German high command was forced to graduate a whole batch of officer one year in advance. The batch of officers which would otherwise have been the graduating class of 1943 became a not-fully-trained-and-educated class of 1942. Needless to say with 50,000 to 60,000 KIA every *month* in the second half of 1943 it's no wonder the nazis began re-classifying former part-Jews (just one Jewish great-grandparent was enough to be considered non-German) as Germans and the SS even granting all kinds of people "aryan status" - heck, including a Bosnian Muslim SS division (Handschar). When you're desperate to fill your ranks even nazis will be flexible with their former so rigid "racial laws". Here's also something which some people don't consider. In June 1940 there were 142 German divisions in France. In June of 1944 there were 66 German divisions in France. That's less than half their numbers 4 years before. At the same time there were 192 German divisions on the Eastern-Front stretching from Finland to Romania in June 1944. This is taken from AxisHistory and official German war records. As for Patton. He was vicious but old Blood'n Guts also sacrificed a lot of American lives for his victories. But the way he argued there was "way more where that came from". Manpower shortages wasn't something the US Army would be facing anytime soon... He'd be remembered as another Douglas Haig had the Germans been of the same quality and quantity in 1944 as they had been in 1940-1941.
Excellent! Thank you.
A very good presentation of this battle.
My Dad was 6th Armored. He was in the original cadre when the division was formed. He joined the army at 17 in 1939
To FactBytes. This is wrong on so many counts. You must not spread false information. For the battle, German units assembled 262 tanks and assault guns. The German force initially comprised two panzer corps headquarters, the 11th Panzer Division and the 111th and 113th Panzer Brigades. The experienced 11th Panzer Division was short of tanks, having lost most of its complement in earlier fighting. Although the two panzer brigades had new Panther tanks, they were manned by fresh crews who had only received two weeks of training and could not read maps appropriately. The need to quickly respond to the sudden advance of the 4th Armored Division and a fuel shortage left the crews with little time for training and little proficiency in tactical maneuvering in large, combined arms operations. Combat Command A (CCA) under Colonel Bruce C. Clarke of the U.S. 4th Armored Division in XII Corps consisted of the 37th Tank Battalion, the 53rd Armored Infantry Battalion, the 66th and 94th Armored Field Artillery Battalions and the 191st Field Artillery Battalion. Also present were elements of the 35th Tank Battalion, the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion, the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion, the 25th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, the 24th Armored Engineer Battalion, and the 166th Engineer Combat Battalion. The 5th Panzer Army outnumbered CCA in tanks and was equipped with Panther tanks, superior to American M4 Sherman tanks in frontal armour protection and main gun range, countered by the U.S. tanks' faster turret traverse and stabilized guns. In close air support, U.S. forces enjoyed an overwhelming advantage. Earlier sorties by U.S. fighter bombers caused some German panzer units to fail to arrive in time for the battle, as they were damaged or destroyed in separate encounters with other Allied forces. Regarding the battle itself, everything can be read on Wikipedia for those who are interested in the truth. Shame on you Factbytes.
Wikipedia is easy to access for info, but I would never use it as a source.
Did you have anything to do with another channel that was on the same battle?? I watched it earlier this week I think it was. Or do you get together with other channels to do the same thing?? Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
read a more in depth regarding this battle, advantage American and French armored forces because they had reconnaissance, troops like M5 stuarts and M8 Greyhounds and PIPER cubs, air support consisting of P47 white the germans was fighting blind blubbering into ambushes from M18 hellcats and towed AT guns and 105mm Artillery. this is were the French captured gobs of Panthers. The book is Patton vs Panzers Battle of Arracourt by Steven Zaloga
A Panzer is only as good as it's crew. Battles are not fought from tank spec sheets.
Exactly
Damn skippy. "Hunting tanks is fun and easy." Sgt. Murphy.
Told by two non combatants with a copy of W.O.T
Precisely
Panthers were also just inferior tanks, but your right about the biggest factor being crew training
Not generally remembered today, the US 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions were "elite". The US Armored Divs mastered the combined arms concepts very quickly and had Commanders who were adaptable, flexible, agile, and aggressive. These commanders and their men skillfully used their tanks, TDs, arty, and infantry to defeat larger, better equipped, and more experienced German units.
Also, the Armored Infantry Battalions of the ADs don't get enough love or acknowledgement from historians who focus on the tanks, missing the fact that most of the tanks destroyed were knocked out by the AIBs and TD detachments.
The British versions of those would be the 11th armoured Division and Guards Armoured Division.
Excellent work here. A fascinating look at a battle I was previously unaware of. Thanks.
Many thanks!
Ignore the haters. Thank you for making this. I enjoyed it. Well done.
So the tank M1 Abrams was named after General Creighton Abrams. What an honor.🙂✌
Is your name Chitty-chitty? (Smile).
Very good facts about Patton, American general. " I don't care what color you are just kill those SOB s , " said Patton... He was born in southern California of French heritage. Good details on this battle and of the war ! 🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
Patton was a Southern man from a famous Southern family. Virginia was his real home.
@@thomaswaynewardPatton's family in Southern California was fabulously wealthy which made George independently wealthy. He became frustrated with obtaining replacement parts for his trucks when training troops so ordered them over the telephone from a Sears catalog then had them shipped by priority mail by train to get them a day or two later.
I'm a tank buff love is my army tanks and the video really enlightening me on a lot of things that I just presumed to be and maybe not but I thank you for the video I enjoyed it thank you so much
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
Great History lesson. Thank YOu.
Despite mythology, the 75mm armed M4 was a brilliant tank.
no, it sucked.
Yep, best tank of the entire war. Loved how they decimated the Nazis at Arracourt.
@@protonneutron9046 What a well thought out reasoned response
@@drewschumann1 yes, and backed up by US Army records.
@@protonneutron9046 Which records? The ones that showed that the M4 was the most survivable tank of WWII? Or maybe the records that showed the 75mm gun was the most effective against the most common threat to US tank? Or maybe the records that proved the M4 had a 1:1 exchange rate with Axis tanks? Or the records that proved the M4 was incredibly reliable, durable and capable of being deployed to all theaters of the war?
I think we can all agree Bazooka Charlie was a bad ass.
OMG, and he's flying in a scout plane that's basically a kite with a propeller in front! The man had incredible courage and desire to strike at the enemy.
That’s some damn fine strategy, and massive operational excellence.
Thank you for the video, and a great explanation of this little known battle! I do a little bit of wargaming with Mike armor and I am usually the Germans. I have seen this battle in one of our books, but we have not got the play it because I don’t have enoughminiature painted yet. Now I’ll be looking forward to see if I can change history.
I did not know of any of this history. American ingenuity combined with battle hardened troops "Fire and Maneuver" techniques won the week-long battle. Well done US Army soldiers !
Being an armchair warrior 70+ years later, here's my 2 cents. Eisenhower prolonged the war buy giving the gas and supplies to Monty. Market Garden failed and the Germans were able to horde equipment for Watch on the Rhine.
I don't think anyone nowadays doesn't realize that Market Garden wasn't a good idea.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 depends on if you happen to live on an island.
At the time of operation market garden the Siegfried line was largely a hollow shell. It had been stripped of most of its troops and much of its artillery to go to the Eastern front. By the time they gave the fuel back to the third Army the Germans had reinforced and re-equipped the Siegfried line to a high degree. Had that same force of paratroopers, fuel and ammunition been given to third Army we would have been in Germany largely out of those and possibly ended the war. There's a memoir I can't remember the name of the book itself but the writer is a German general Von Mellethin. That book will tell you exactly what was facing the third Army at the time.
@@JohnRodriguesPhotographerI think operation market garden was so poorly planed because of the resistance they took in France past Normandy which was nothing I the allies thought Germany was done and were ignorant to the fact Germany had been preparing to hold where they were for a while.
@@ilikeships9333 market garden was like designing a traffic jam. Look at how many troops were going to advance essentially down to two lane road. I believe they had a corps involved in the advance down the two lane road. That's about 20,000 men, add to that over a thousand vehicles in tanks. Not to mention people are shooting at them from either side of that road. The ground to either side of that road was not suitable for armor it was too waterlogged. I feel Montgomery and Browning failed to account for the intelligence that was indicating there was more strength there than they thought or assumed. And then when they were right at the cusp of taking the the last Bridge they stopped. Granted their infantry was still fighting behind them while the armor was waiting for them, but why not advance with a new infantry unit?
I agree. I was in the tank corp in the 50's stationed at Ft. Knox Ky. At that time we had the M48 Patton. 90ml and a 50 cal. machine gun. Fortunately we were never called to Korea. The M48 was a good tank for its time. Had several upgrades from the M47. The tank and it’s crew was only as good as the tankers who were assigned to them. The same with all the new high tech fighter planes. They are only as good as the pilots flying them.
The later Shermans had many improvements especially the 76.2 mm hv gun models. Patten ordered welded additional armor, and prohibited sand bags.
I had a friend who commanded an antitank gun. He may have in or around this battle.He was in the 79th division.
Creighton Abrams is who the M1 tank is named for. Patton himself said Abrams was the best tanker he'd ever seen
and Abrams did not get himself killed
@@wisconsinfarmer4742 He lead his tank forces in an up-armored Jumbo Sherman tank that could even absorb some of the dreaded 88 AT rounds frontally. The US should have made more Jumbos than they did.
not really much harder and heavier to transport in the holds of ships - over 3500 miles. And the shermans were quicker,dependable and parts interchangeable
@@goldleader6074jumbos were too heavy, they were overloaded like late model panzer IVs and could hardly perform a cross country march or climb obstacles.
From 8:03 it looks like anti glider poles so is the footage near Arracourt well inland from the channel or footage from the Normandy area?
The newly configured panzer brigades Patton was facing were, while sporting capable armor, were short on infantry, communications, and command. Everything Pattons' units were well stocked with.
Sometimes 'grizzled veterans' can get a little too grizzled and suddenly you have a formation almost completely composed of replacements. CCA on the other hand were veterans too, and hadn't taken so many losses. Equipment matters, but less than the users.
And grizzled veterans can become so grizzled they become overly cautious.
I had a debate with a guy over why the Germans he believed were better army even though they lost in one of the reasons why he brought up was that they would counter-attack after their enemy was exhausted so they cannot dig in. This is an example of them doing just that but with the worst possible result.
A "Pyrrhic Defeat?" lol
German army doctrine was to be more adaptable and more flexible, with more initiative by NCOs and lower down etc. Its staggering how they still managed to put up a tough fight against 3 world super powers all at the same time. No other army could have done this. The combined allies had 3 or 4 times as many troops, 4 or 5 times as many tanks etc. Then add in allied air support and more or less unlimited supplies in comparison. Still, it's their own fault. Hitler and co shouldn't have bitten off more than he could chew.
Don’t dismiss the impact of crypto analysts. We knew the German plans.
German tactics were very good but didn't always work due egos and problems
@@waynehewett4017 the guy I was talking to that was his point was that the US adopted a lot of the German tactics as did a lot of armies
Thoroughly enjoyed this one ..
The M4 was not only not a bad tank, it was actually a pretty darn good tank. America built a lot of them, and got them, along with crews, parts, ammo, fuel, mechanics, to battlegrounds all over the world. Enough of them to help win the war.
It definitely gets a bad rap, it did it's job well given the circumstances. It was much more reliable than German and Soviet tanks, kept crews alive unlike Soviet tanks, and it was relatively easy to produce, transport, and supply across the oceans. Most of the issues were mitigated by upgrades as the war went on.
Parts were interchangeable between the M4 production runs. The front final drive housing would fit onto any M4 chassis. The turrets were drop in fits into any M4 chassis. The M36 turret was first used in M4'S that were repaired in France when labor problems prevented further production of the M10 chassis. The Army shipped over 29 M36 turrets after instructing Ford to set M36 turrets on their new M4'S coming off the production line then redo the ammo bins outside the plant.
Look at the success they had, and the fact that they stayed in use updated by Israel for the next 50 years, reliable and plentiful, two things the Germans couldn't say...
For some reason, the "Battle of Arracourt" has today achieved near mythical status. At the time, the battle(s) of Arracourt and surroundings were not regarded as a major "tank battle" by any of the sides - at best only a quick sideshow. The Lorraine campaign was huge, and it was a lot of action going on at the same time - so it is likely that the encounter somehow “drowned” in the large picture. For the Germans it was only one of several critical campaigns in the West, East and South going on at the same time. Operation Market Garden started the day before, and took most of the focus in the West. It is telling that Robert S. Allen's 1947 work "Lucky Forward", a volume full of praise for General Patton and the Third Army's campaigns in 1944-45, does not even mention the Battle of Arracourt. It was not regarded as a significant battle at the time, neither by the US Army or Wehrmacht, merely one of many German counterattacks in late 44-45. The fighting that took place on September 19th, at Lezey and Bezange, is usually describes as “the battle of the battle” at Arracourt - the death race of the Panthers. It was in fact a much smaller battle than usually depicted in modern articles. The fighting was between elements of 113th Panzer Brigade, and Combat Command A of the 4th Armored Division, where one company of the 37th Tank Battalion (Shermans), and one company of 704th Tank destroyer Battalion (M18s) did most of the fighting. There is no doubt that the Germans came off worse in the encounter, but it was not as loopsided as often described. There are also considerably confusion regarding the losses - on both sides. Partly because it wasn't really one large battle, but a series of smaller engagements over a period of several days. Some authors only count the first 3-4 days (18 - 21 September), others up to 12 days 18 - 29 September. And it certainly wasn't only a tank vs. tank battle. US artillery played an extremely important part, damaging many panzers and basically stripping the German tanks of their Panzergrenadiers. Allied fighter-bombers damaged many tanks even before the battle began, and did a devastating job after the first few days when weather cleared up, damaging many Panzers. The Germans, OTH, had no air support and very little artillery. Probably more than half of the lost Panzers were destroyed or damaged by jabos and artillery. Many of the rest by M18 tank destroyers. The two German Panzer brigades, 111th and 113th that took part had - on paper - each one battallion of 44 Panthers, one battallion of 45 Panzer IVs and one company of 10 (Jagd)Panzer IV/70 - for a total of 198 tanks and TDs. However, the 111th had suffered heavy losses even before the battle began, and had only 17 Panzer IVs and no Panthers available on the 17th. They attacked on the 18th, and German documents showed that several of their tanks were available the next day. Meanwhile, the US claimed no less than two dozen Panzer IVs destroyed. The 113th had also suffered losses before the battle, and had only 42 Panthers and no Panzer IVs available on the 17th. The US claimed 43 German tanks destroyed on the 19th, while German documents show that at least 10 Panthers were ready for combat the next day. So the numbers the Americans claimed to have met these first days are inflated, and so are also the losses - as shown by the number of operational Panzers after the first few days. This is normal, everybody overclaimed. The only way to get a realistic picture of the battle is to view primary documents from both sides. According to Wikipedia, the Germans lost 86 destroyed tanks + 114 damaged in the 12 day battle, about half of these were Panthers, the rest Panzer IV and Jagdpanzers/StuGs. These numbers are actually more than the total numbers of German tanks commited, so are undoubtedly inflated. Although the two Panzer Brigades were practically wiped out in the September fighting, and left with only a handful of tanks and Jagdpanzers, not all of these losses were incurred in the Arracourt battles. There are also a lot of confusion of US losses. Some claim just 25 tanks for the 4th armored division, others claim 3rd Army lost a total 41 M4, 7 M3/5, 7 M18. Again, depending on time frame, area included and units involved. Total US losses in the Lorraine campaign 1 September to 17 December 1944 were 342 tanks and an unknown number of TDs, probably around 70-80 (Dupuy Institute). The Germans had very few tanks, TDs and assault guns available in this campaign after Arracourt.
That's still a 2:1 kill ratio for the 🇺🇲
You can read stories of German vets who said when US bombers finished they had very few working tanks (this is in addition to damage from fighters.)
@@leewood331 I've read a/c rockets powerful but v inaccurate
Panzer Brigade 111 didn't even receive its Panthers to train on until the 5th to 7th September. What can you learn in just over a week?
@@leewood331 And you can also read all kinds of stories that claim the tank kills from ground attack aircraft are highly over stated. So which one is it? And what difference does it make anyways if they were destroyed by aircraft or tank destroyers or anti tank guns or tanks? The fact is they got their asses kicked, all the fanboy excuses in the world doesn't change that, when it comes to the Kaserine Pass I never hear German fanboys point out it was the very first time US troops fought the Germans, all anyone ever says is that it was superior German this and that, but when the subject's a German defeat it's a river of excuses. They lost, this battle and the war and all the fanboy tears in the world won't change anything about it, the fact is all those German victories were against enemies that they rolled across their borders in sneak attacks after having signed peace treaties with them, where I come from that's called sucker punching someone, but when they came up against real enemies who were prepared they got their asses handed to them more often than not.
Thank you
One of the biggest problems for historians with the battles fought in Lorraine of which Arracourt was one of several battles is that both sides exaggerated the number of kills made. So such so one of the Panzer brigades were declared destroyed twice and was still operational. Also with the coming of the fall rains things deteriorated on the battlefield as the medieval drainage systems had been choked off from earlier fighting. So it was easy for a tank to become hopelessly bogged. This affected the green crews of the Panzer brigades who became reluctant to leave the road ways. On a few engagements Panthers were caught broadsides and in this position even the standard short barrel 75mm of most Sherman tanks could easily penetrate the hull sides of the Panther at range. During this phase of the battle the light M5 Stuart tank came into its own getting a reputation of being mud runners. So much so the 4th Armoured division put the M5 to heavy use relying on this tanks mobility.
When you say patton Sherman tanks verse panther tank, you left out one other vital ingredient the 19th tactical airforce group they protected patterns Flank and blasted everything in front of him, so you could say it was two against one
Shane Tharle, I was thinking the same. It's been interesting to hear about German tank losses from breakdowns, fuel shortages, etc. However, I wonder how many were due to allied aircraft attacks? Something that the allies themselves didn't really need to contend with from early to mid 1944 onwards. BTW, one if my two uncles who fought in WWII flew Hurricanes and P47's during the war. Obviously in later times, he would have been involved mainly in ground attack. That's why your same comment came to mind.
@@MrT67 The Chieftain on YT has you covered on German tank losses to allied air: kzhead.info/sun/lbKjoMNsoYtuo5E/bejne.html
@@goldleader6074 Thanks Bud👍
Great subject matter, great video. What you narrated at the end ... "superior mobility ... provided a decisive edge to the defenders" ... pretty much sums up the competitive advantage of the US military in general: besides our always-superior technology, our mobility usually guarantee USA victories against any enemy. Unfortunately our enemies don't always grasp our many superiorities and get into wars with us anyway. Then they make many mistakes which guarantees their loss. China and Russia and North Korea take note: don't even try it.
You mean like Vietnam or Afghanistan? You had the advantage of superior tech, mobility and overwhelming firepower, but you still lost. Not on the field, but where it really matters, which is in the public sphere. The greatest weakness of the US military is the humble body bag. Too many of them returning on those overseas flights, will turn all but the most ardent warmonger against conflict. You can have all the tech in the world, but if your people don't want to fight, then the fact you are a 'democracy' will work against you. If the USA was a ruthless dictatorship, you wouldn't have to worry. But you aren't. I don't think any sovereign nation is stupid enough to directly attack you. So, if you engage an enemy, you're going to be the aggressor, and with the instantaneous spread of information now, something like the Iraq invasion will be seen for the lie it is. Hostile nations know the best way to hit you, is in your pockets. It'll be economic and cyber warfare that will be used against you, because the leadership of these nations aren't stupid.
@@georgelazenby3607 Good points George. As to ruthless dictatorship ask Pootin how well that's worked for him? As to cyber warfare we're fine. It's the pandemics from China I worry about. But take a look at how that did not really hurt us economically. hmmm, maybe we try regime changes in the hostile countries! yeah, that's the ticket
Sorry ruby your nationalistic bullshit seems to have run away with your logic. Listen to the narrator. It's not often you will find an American source who relays it as honestly as this one. The German forces technology was beyond US capabilities. He repeatedly tells us the German forces were scracth units full of rookies with a lack of logistics including fuel. The US forces engaged performed magnificently - I doubt many will deny that. The question should be asked however how did the US army get itself into this position in the first place - to be so worried by an inferior force (no matter their tanks were technologically streets ahead of the US equivalent they were scratch understrength and would have been easy meat for the US forces had they been better deployed and not left themselves open to such attack - that is not good battlefiled management tactics - I'll leave you to call it what you will - I will merely say it was rash and once more underestimated the enemy. Nobody did scratch, cobbled together, hastily constructed attack or defence than the German Army - they were masters of it and the US leadership must have been aware of it having fought from N Africa, through Italy, then into Southern and Northern France yet they sill fell foul of it. Both here and at the Bulge. Patton was just not as good as his PR flunkies would wish him to have been. He outran his logistics and his abilities. Though his ego would never admit to such of course.
Eure immer (US?)" überlegene Technologie" im WW II ?? Ihr hattet ja noch nicht einmal ein richtigen Motor für eure Blechdose von Sherman. Mein Vater sagte damals, die US-Panzer konnte man mit einen Dosenöffner knacken. Ihr seid immer so Grosskotzig, und glaubt, das ihr das "Warme Wasser", oder den "tiefen Teller" erfunden hättet. In Wirklichkeit, habt ihr nur alles von den Deutschen "abgekupfert".
@@scaleyback217 During this exact time period (Sept 17th) Operation Market-Garden was going on up North in and around Holland and was being prioritized the Allies limited logistics due to inadequate port facilities on mainland Europe after the invasion a few months prior. I seem to remember that Market-Garden was planned and implemented in only 7 days, so perhaps 3rd Army was not given much notice that their logistics were to be diverted elsewhere and had to halt wherever they were until adequate logistics arrived in order to continue major advances.
Was present at a 1987 brief to Armor Advanced Course students -- read captains -- by Arracourt veterans on a terrain model led by Jimmie Leach, a company commander in CCA Kind of unbelievable today.
Outstanding documentary. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
that bazooka plane is in MA. American History Museum
No one does well with inexperienced tank crews (most of the Germans) fighting against highly experienced veterans (the USA units) who also have air superiority over the battlefield. In fact, it's pretty much hopeless in the long run (as was the whole German strategic situation by that point in the war). However, kudos to Patton's troops, who clearly handled the situation very effectively. A well conducted defense all around.
The Western Allies had Air Supremacy over the battlefields not superiority. (And George would have handled things even better had Ike not squandered resources on Monty's ego.)
lee wood None of Patton's resources were squandered on Montys ego. Market Gardens resources came from British stocks, and Market Garden was still the fastest allied advance against German opposition in the entire September 1944 to February 1945 period. Patton had already been failing against Metz for a week before Market Garden was even green lit. Patton's Lorraine campaign was a miserable failure. 4 months to move barely 50 miles, with nearly 55,000 combat casualties? The Lorraine was the biggest allied failure of autumn 1944.
Nice documentary. So THAT's who the the Abrams tank is named after, and what he did to earn such a distinction.
When you think about it, tactics really saved the day. We went against the germans with equipment that was a step below their tank specs. We had the speed advantage but sherman armor and guns weren't quite matching up to those Panzers. BUT our boys got it done.
A perfect example of technology being rendered useless by bad tactics and inadequate training.
The Germans were getting increasingly short on trained men at this stage of the war so they cut down training to the basics, employed kids and had little to no time to prepare them for real battle. The nazis had the idea that sheer will and German spirit would overcome any deficiency. More level-headed German commanders knew this spelled doomed for Germany and millions of killed and wounded Germans. German logistics were also lacking throughout the war (this weakness was never really remedied following the early years of the war when victories were took mere weeks and didn't reveal this) but by the final year of the war it got from worse to disastrous. During the Battle of the Bulge many Tiger II and Panther tanks simply ran out of fuel and never had any fuel trucks (or fuel depots conquered) assist them. A tank might be the most amazing tank designed ever but without fuel it's going nowhere and is nothing more than a glorified pillbox.
Yes . In tank on tank engagements during the 2nd World War . The highest ratio of kill / loss lay with the German motorised infantry support guns . The next was the U.S tank destroyers . These crews worked with the limitations and strengths of their vehicle usual from concealed pre prepared positions. Then hit and run. The US tank destroyers having superior speed with their lighter armour . But arguably better tank busting guns than the Nazis . These german tank units were heavily made up of inexperienced green troops . Patton may have been the only allied General capable of using combined arms . Except for the early British versus Italian clashes in North and Horn of Africa. Hit
Better tank busting guns than the Nazis? Which guns? The 76mm on the M18 and M10? They weren't better tank busting guns than the German 75mm L/70 or the 88mm L/56 and L/71.
Huh? Basically every generals in the war made extensive use of combined arms. Tanks needed infantry support to function, and artillery and air power were key allied advantages throughout the war.
Where on earth did you dig that one up from. It was part of military doctrine and training from late in WW1. A Canadian concept if my memory serves me right. What do you think happened on D Day where air/sea/land elements combined to great effect.
The comments here saying that all other armies also knew about using combined arms may be correct but those other armies didn't do it very effectively as the US Army did with its overwhelming production of war materiel and easy adaptability down to the squad, tank crew, platoon, company, and battalion level, not just the higher echelons. Imagine a US Army enlisted man with just a radio could call in mortar fire, and even artillery concentrations, air strikes, and naval gunfire, as well as scouting movements and ambushes by higher headquarters. No Axis armies could do that and very few of their Allies. Also, the training and replacement pattern of US Army units to feed in small numbers of replacements into veteran formations allowed the easy transfer of useful combat experience to novice warriors.
@@scaleyback217 But only used it successfully part of the time depending.
Superb ! Thanks a lot.
Thank you!
An amazing fight, and yes, needs more attention than it gets.
MY FATHER WAS A TEC SARGENT/TRANSPORTATION CHIEF-VERY QUIET GUY NEVER SAID MUCH ABOUT THE ARMY.
Enjoyed it! Thank you for this. Btw, Arracourt is a French word and should be pronounced as "Arra-coo". Same with all the other names that end in 'court'.
i mean, the guy sounds like he's using text to speech so i dont know how he would hope to pronounce it right
Great history lesson. Where there many m10 wolverines present as well?
Does anyone know the story behind the clip near the beginning which shows the American jeep on fire? I have been looking for that one for quite awhile.
Last General that wanted to win a war.
Dad was under Patton after his move through the Hedge row country. He was anti tank and him and his buddy set up artillery for an anticipated move by the Germans coming over a hill . It was his buddy's idea and without orders they took out some tanks and repelled their advance . Dad and his buddy were called into the street outside of Patton's headquarters. Dad stood next to Red his buddy while Patton pinned him for what they did . Dad was puzzled why he was there,and also why Patton just stared at him. Patton walked away but one of his officers told him to stay . An officer returned and told dad he was being promoted to a Sargent . Dad asked why him,and the officer said " Because you're alive". Dad was supposed to go on leave but was given orders with a gun squad to pierce the line in Bastogne. Dad refused the Thompson due to poor accuracy. He picked up a 1911 or was given one. Dads shooting skills were better than anyone I've ever seen ,so I don't think they needed a sniper. Him and his men took out two SS squads on the way and made it to Christmas Eve the 24th. Fighting was tough . They were stuck in the middle of fire and even had a Mustang try to take them. Dad on the 24 th ran ahead of his men and shot a German soldier. They took no prisoners with the SS but did for the common German soldier . Dad sat with the dying soldier to comfort him, but then he felt the barrel of a gun at his neck . The dying soldier pleaded for dad's life as dad was considering a grab for 1911. Dad and the German soldier honored the request and dad was taken although considered taking a futal attempt for his gun. Later in life he regretted not doing it because he left his men behind. Dad spent 6 months in a German prison camp ,and even on the way was locked in a box car for six days to kill him. He was one of two that survived. Patton knew something and wasn't wrong but dad with worn out gear suffered dearly.His survival skills ,tactics and shooting skills were unbelievable , but Patton knew something . 😎
That's an incredible recount Brian. Your Dad was really something ... the type of man we owe our victory to. Your post should be in the top Comments for this video.
thanks for sharing. Paton might have known something but your dad knew more! He was self-reliant and brave.
You mention a 1911 that is a .45 pistol,, I think you meant 1903 Springfield, it was used as a sniper weapon in Europe, it had a 2x scope. My father adored Patton was assigned to his HQ at the end of the war in Munich, dad was an MP and would just say he directed a lot of traffic.
@@hooplajones8821my dad was a MP 4th armored division from the beach all the way to Germany
The 75mm would frequently bounce off the panzers, as the panzers had thicker frontal armour. That is why the u.s would hit them in the track areas. When the m26 pershing came out with the long barrelled 90mm gun. They didnt really get a chance to use them. But they had a few that worked really well. When the north korean ( russian) tanks came up against some pershings. The pershings shot through both sides of the russian tanks.
My Dad's Uncle Walter served under Patton.
Which is it "Grizzled veterans of the 5th Panzer Army" kzhead.info/sun/p9GxiLh5sGOZrZE/bejne.html or "Fresh Crews with little training"? kzhead.info/sun/p9GxiLh5sGOZrZE/bejne.html
Great point (maybe its the "grizzled ghosts.")
@@leewood331 It is the latter with wishing it was the former.
It was a hastily cobbled together hybrid of units and personnel some had seen way too much combat some enough to still be useful but mainly hastily thrown together recruits which Patton with the power he had at his fingertips should have sliced through like a knife through butter. On the other side of that coin was the German ability to be able to cobble together even when being overwhelmed with tech/manpower excellent defences as was witnessed each time they were attacked then had to regroup or counter attack. Doesn't disguise the simple truth of Patton not being up to the star billing the US gave him.
Another butthurt brit,Patton was a ww1 tank commander he understood combined arms and mobile warfare and did not dither like the laggard bernard. Monty was worse at commanding than you commenting.Patton schooled the sod in sicily taking both Palermo and Messina pointing out the fact monty only won in the desert where you could have won
Very clear explanation.
I read that Patton was somewhat unique in that he did not train in the use of Calvery tactics for Tanks, but instead used Sailing Ship tactics in land battles. . Point of Note: The OTHER FORCES mentioned in the video that Fuel and Supplies were diverted to was the major league debacle referred to as Operation Market Garden
I don't know about that since Patton was an old horse cav officer himself. He basically wanted to keep enemy units busy fighting a frontal threat while flanking and do heavy damage with his mobile armored forces.
They should have let Patton off the chain early on. But the powers were afraid he had designs on becoming The US President. I sincerely believe, Patron had no such desire.
Patton couldn't even take Metz for nearly 3 months. When he was racing across wide open country devoid of any real enemy he was great. When he had to come up against German forces who were actually defending, even in mediocre strength, he was less capable than other allied generals.
It would have been a disaster. Patton was just not effective on a battlefield even when he had superior forces. No idea on Patton's political ambitions or lack thereof but as a battlefield commander he was not that effective and at time bordered on ludicrous. I'm sure the US had more capable commanders but they didn't shout their mouths off like Patton did.
Political aspirations? AHAHAHAHAH What a load of crap.
@@SteffiReitsch Well there's a profound and useful contribution.
@@scaleyback217 Yeah, dummies need to hear it.
Very enlightening.
The Panther was a very, very good tank. It was not a super tank. It traded side armor for mobility, meaning that any tank, including a 75mm Sherman, could easily take it out with a side shot. Throw untrained crews into Panther tanks and tell them to attack veteran US forces waiting or them in Shermans, operating with air support, and the result is inevitable. 4th Armored was a very skilled unit.
Fuel was all they needed.... could have shorten the war.
Very good !!
In the 1990's, this battle, and the way battalion-commander Abrams handled it, was used as part of the instruction for future battalion commanders. I still have the Army pamphlet they gave us about the battle.