Machines | (4/5) TANKS! The Battle of Normandy
videos | at work | information | view | construction
--SUBSCRIBE TO EXCELLENT World War II VIDEOS---- --UPLOADED Weekly--- Videos Running Time 00:49:00 in 5 Parts TANKS!: The Battle of Normandy D-Day (Operation Overlord) was the culmination of 2 years of planning, training and preparation. It was the answer to the USSRs pleadings for 2 years. By the time of the D-Day landings, the USSR had pushed the Whermacht back into Poland. The Western Allies would tie down 25-30% of the Whermacht and assist the USSR in the complete ruin of Nazi Germany. The D-Day plan is quite possibly the best planned invasion in history. Much of the credit is owed to the experiences of the British Armed Forces against their respected foe. The selection of Normandy, as the landing zone was chosen by British Lt.Gen Morgan. General Montgomery insisted that 5 divisions invade Normandy rather than three. The enigma decrypts and the British double cross system, of turning German agents sent to Britain, completely fooled German Intelligence (Abwehr) and SS SD (Sicherheitsdienst). By June 6th, 1944, German intelligence relied on 38+ agents in Britain for most of their human pre-invasion intelligence. These agents were either British SIS (Security Information Service) handlers, turned German agents or fictitious agents created by British intelligence. Some in British intelligence became suspicious that the plan was working too well. The British and Canadian forces experience at Dieppe, was a blessing in disguise, despite the terrible casualties sustained by the brave Canadian troops. The British Churchill tank had difficulty negotiating the sand on the beach. However, once off the beach the armor ran into tough obstacles. All armor landed at Dieppe was lost. The British were determined to be better prepared during the next raid or invasion. Known to the Allies as Hobarts Funnies, specialized armor was developed by the British 79th Armored Division. The Churchill AVRE (Amour Vehicle Royal Engineers) tanks were developed for the Normandy landings. Churchill tanks were converted into; anti-mine tanks, carpet layer tanks, flamethrower tanks, bunker buster spigot throwing tanks and numerous other vehicles. Most notable of the specialized armor was the DD (Duplex Drive) Sherman Tank. The DD tank was basically a tank converted into a small boat . With a pressurized canvas screen, the DD Sherman could swim towards the Normandy coast and significantly assist the infantry driving inland. The DD Sherman was a resounding success at Sword, Gold and Juno. The DD tank was a disaster at Normandy Beach. Because of difficult sea conditions and the ridiculous decision to launch the DDs into rough sea 5 miles distant off shore, doomed the DD attack. However, follow-up tank support, brave infantry attacks and naval gunfire turned the tide at Omaha Beach. Superior German armor, tactics and anti-tank equipment turned the Normandy breakout into a nightmare. Hedgerow embankments turned the French countryside into small fortresses. If that wasnt difficult enough, the German Tiger, Panther, PzKw IV and tank hunters could easily knock-out any Allied tank at extreme distance. On the other hand the Tiger and Panthers frontal armor was impervious to any Allied tanks round. Allied tankers began developing a Tiger phobia during any advance. The Normandy campaign came to an end with the closure of the Falaise Pocket. In the end the superior armor, tactics and defenses of the German Army in Normandy could not turn the tide. Allied superiority in numbers, air power and overall strategy defeated the Germany Army in Normandy. Enjoy this excellent episode of TANKS! The Battle of Normandy.
Comments
-
7:30 talking out of his ass. Most German tanks didn't have sloped armor, except for the Panther/jagpanther which was a copy of the t32 and Tiger 2. These tanks made up a minority of the total German strength.
-
I would like to point out that the Panzer Mark 4 could penetrate 4" of armour, the panther and tiger 5.5" The 31 ton Sherman had 2" of armor plate. Increase this to 3" and all you do as add 8 or 9 tons to the tank's weight, dropping speed and maneuverability increasing gas consumption, mechanical problems and requiring wider tracks etc. for no increased protection. The L48 75mm of the Mark 4 can penetrate 3 inches as easily as 2 inches. In my opinion, the better defensive option is speed and maneuverability. The German Mark 4, their most numerous tank in Normandy (900) had very inferior armour and the standard Sherman 75m gun had no problem knocking them out. The panther had side turret and body armour of less than 2 inches which also was easy to penetrate.
On the subject of the weak 75mm antitank round due to low muzzle velocity this is gtrue, but the Sherman had a more powerful high explosive round than the Mark 4 or panther. You can't have both a high velocity armour piercing round and a large high explosive round from the same gun. For infantry support the Sherman was superior to the panzer and this swas the priority. The 76 mm American upgrade to the low velocity 75 mm gun had a high explosive projectile with .95 pounds of TNT opposed to 1.95 pounds. For that reason the British did not want any of the 76mm gunned Shermans. They had the Firefly, one per troop to engage German tanks. Besides the biggest threat was from AT guns, mainly the Luftwaffe 88 and you need a high explosive round to take these out.
Complicated. You need to decide what you wanted your tanks to do and what the biggest threat to them was. -
7:18 "The armor plating was always sloped..." Have a look at the boxyness that is the Tiger again, please.
-
PS My dad never, ever told a war story about death or even violence. He told us he did nothing in the war ! He left his AARs to us posthumously (2012). Therefore I only realized who and what he was, and why he was so distant and emotionally labile. My whole life suddenly made sense to me for the first time.
-
It's funny the dismissive way that they refer to the 12th SS as just a bunch of teenagers. The most psychopathic people are teenage males. Especially indoctrinated ones. Add to the fact that they had battle hardened nco's and officers and I'd like to see these armchair generals go up against them.
-
Meh not too dangerous. It's a proven fact 14th century knights had stronger steel on their armor than the Tigers in WW2
-
Someone doesnt understand tank warfare. T-34 couldnt penetrate a Tigers frontal armor, but could easily penetrate the sides or rear. the Tiger wasnt only hit in the front. Again, why are you referencing a completely different forum here?, yet im the tool?, please. As for German War Doc????? do you mean Wehrmacht or SS documents, two different entities under the same flag. So which did this tank fall under if you researched it in "German War Documentation"?
-
This is all the hype about this tank. Every story someone puts out, it is embellshed beyond belief, twisted and turned. Look you just did yourself. You also stated in other comments, the T-34 could never do anything to a Tiger 1. Now you are turning everything aorund. You must play that Wolrd of Tanks game way to much.
-
Umm I do, but you dont, read it again, it was in reference to a another forum and that is what the member stated. Must have been you. um no, my info is not false. This is all by German War Documnetation. Go look it up and quit making up stories and embelishing them beyond belief. What a hypocrit. Oh, so now a T-34 can knock out a Tiger. gees, not what you stated before. Go look. Nice way to try and turn it around by the way. What a tool.
-
You dont read well do you? 280 hits is not 237. 80 miles is not 40. The simple fact that it was still able to even make it to the rally area is proof of how well they protected thier crew. It suffered transmission damage, track damage, and road wheel damage, yet still drove out of battle. So again, it wasnt only the T-34 it was facing. Besides, the T-34 could absolutely take out a Tiger I. So your assumption of it facing undergunned foes is completely false.
-
Only a damaged track and returned? A forum member was asking about this same tank. What a load of hype. 280 rounds, drove 80 miles, repaired and sent back out. Bullshit. It was 220 rounds, limped 40 miles that took 2 days and was removed from service as it was badly destroyed. So now which story is true? I know where my info came from and I know it never returned to serivce and it was for more then just a track repair. They dont take them from operation for a damaged track.
-
Again, a forum they are talking about this same tank as you. Oh but wait. It gets better. The Tiger 1 took 280 hits from the T-34, and still kept fight even with dmaged tracks and the loss of 3 road wheels. It drove 80 more miles fighting until it had to refuel and re-arm but it was to badly damaged to continue and they kept it there at the rally area. The only part that is true from this whole thing, is the last part were it was to badly damaged to be returned to combat. That is when I Read It.
-
Sherman M4 short barrel 75mm, unable to penetrate at any distance. Sherman M4A4 76mm main gun needs to close to a distance of 700m to penetrate frontal armour. Sherman Firefly 76 mm main gun armed with 17 pounder can penetrate Tiger frontal armour at 1750m. T-34 88mm gun has to close in to 500m to destroy a Tiger. Not penetrate, but destroy. The T-34 is not listed if that is frontal or sides. It just says to destroy. Only way a 122mm wont destroy a Tiger is wrong ammo or way off distance.
-
Besides, a 122mm round going through the side and or rear end will knock it out. As well as the 75mm from a Sherman. So obviously a T-34 has the same capabilites. Oh ya, I see what your saying, they were all so stupid they only attacked from the front. What a crock of shit you spit. There is proof all over, go look it up.
-
This is the hype bullshit of the Tiger right here. The firefly most definitely could penetrate the Tiger 1 frontal armour and do it at 1750 m. with the 17 pounder. If that gun could do, then I know for a fact a 122m round wuill penetrate at almost any ditance. What a load of bullshit you guys out out there. There is actual pictures of a Sherman M4 penetrating the sides and rear end, I know the T-34 coud penetrate as well. 237 hits only on the front, bullshit. What a load of crap. Hypocrits.
-
So only the T-34 was in the battle? Wrong. You are missing the point entirely. Gun size only matters when your account for distance from the target. At point blank range a T-34 couldn't penetrate a Tigers frontal armor. At 500 meters it could penetrate the sides and rear. This Tiger was hit all over and from all ranges. Are you so obtuse as to not realize this? And yes, the IS-2 mounted a 122mm, which could penetrate the Tiger, but it depends on range. Firefly couldnt pentrate the frontal either
-
LOL I was trying to make a comparisson so you would understand. I know for a fact that what was fireing at the Tiger was nothing more then a T-34, nothing bigger. Why, lets look at the Firefly. That was a 76mm gun, (17 pounder) that could knock one out. Hmmm a 122 mm gun couldnt? Someone is stretching the trueth here, like a lot! What a loser. I did read something about that Tiger, and it was a T-34 that was fireing on it. Nothing bigger! By no means a tank destroyer of any kind.
-
How can you respond to a comment that you know nothing about? This Tiger was on the Eastern front, not western, so the mention of a firefly is rediculous. These were rounds from Tanks(T-34, KV-1/2, IS-1/2 (with a 122mm gun), Artillery, and Anti-Tank guns. The entire reason for the 88mm was stand off distance and penetrating power. Killing without being killed. The arguement was how durable it was, not what it was facing. So now you know it was facing other tanks with bigger guns, any questions?
-
Definitely would not call Sherman and such an inferior tank. It did exactly what it was designed to do with limited flaws and breakdowns. It was designed as infantry backup. Not a full on tank destroyer such as Tigers and Panthers. Nobody understands that. But at that time and in those circumstances, you work with what you have. The war was not going to stop because allies didnt have tank destroyers. Everyone needs to quit comparing the Sherman to Tigers, makes them sound stupid.
-
Why is it, Tiger fannyboys always always comapre a much smaller tank to the Tigers and such? This would be like turning the Tiger and king tiger against each other. Lets see who would win then. Why cant we do this? They are in the same weight class, same penetrating power. Same pieces of shit that always broke down etc etc. Compare the damn thing to something of comparisson, not much smaller and under gunned. WOW, common sense right out the door on these statements.