Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Panzers in Poland 1939 – Success, Failures \u0026 Losses" video.

  1. Panzer III was a shitty tank in 1939, with only a 37mm gun. When Panzer III entered service in 1935 it was intended to be the main tank of the German army, and it was planned that this machine - which was considered as powerful tank back then - should one day replace all weak pz1 and pzII tanks in service with the army. But the World War began before that dream could come true. And in 1939 only a few of these tanks had been produced. So the German army had to use old PzI and PzII tanks to crush the Poles instead. And in 1940 in the Battle of France, the same story was still true, since German tank production was still unimpressive. And the few panzer III tanks that fought, showed the German army that this tank was shit compared to French tanks, it had crappier firepower, armour and horsepower per tonne ratio. So the German army decided to give the tank a better 50mm gun and give it some extra armour so it would be able to better against a future enemy than what it had done against French tanks. And in Russia in 1941, the Panzer III was finally deployed in large numbers. But because of the lazyness of the German industry, which had choosen to not listen to Hitlers orders, most of the panzer III tanks still carried the old 37mm gun. And that gun was okay when fighting most Russian tanks such as T-26 and BT7. But against the best Russian tanks (KV-1 and T-34) with thick armour it was completly useless. And some historians even claim this to be the reason why Hitler lost the battle of Moscow in 1941. Panzer III got upgraded and did an okayish performance in 1942. But by 1943 it started to getting a bit outdated, and not being able to fight against allied tanks (ie M4 sherman and T34/76) on equal terms. But it wasn't enough panzer IV and Panther tanks available to the German army to take this old crappy machine out of service. So it had to continue it service within the German army, but now as a reconnaissance tank. And since the gun was useless against armour, it was instead given a 75mm gun to fire High-Explosives on soft targets. And this PanzerIIIN variant was also given some extra thick armour and was used for infantry support. So by 1943 the roles had changed. Panzer III had earlier been intentended to fight tanks, while Panzer IV should be attacking the infantry and bunkers with its short fat gun. But now the roles was the opposite. Panzer III had to fight the enemy foot solidiers while Panzer IV dealt with the enemy tanks. And in 1943 production of Panzer III had stopped, since the tank was outdated. Instead Germany used all panzer III chassis to build the Sturmgeshütze III. Because Stug had both better armour and firepower than panzer III (since it didn't have a turret), and it also had some of the best optics of any German tank. And it was also much cheaper to produce and days needed for production was also cut down, since Stug didn't need a turret like other tanks. All in all, Panzer III looks impressive on paper with its big gun and high numbers of tanks produced. But it was only after 1942 that the tank really got some substantial improvements. And it was not until 1941 that the tank was availale in large numbers. So I would call this tank a little bit of a failure. But its excellent traverse speed enabled the tank chassi to become the most succesful tank destroyer in history.
    2
  2. Indeed. Arracourt and Korsun comes to mind.
    2
  3. A tank school division?
    1
  4. But on the other hand didn't Germany have any real tanks than just a few years before the invasion. And those tanks had shitty armour, shitty firepower, and underpowered engines.
    1
  5. Poland could maybe have lasted a few months more. But I don't think the allies would have been able to punch their way into Germany in that short amount of time. Especially not during the winter. France tried to make a large attack with tanks and guns and everything, but they got stuck in the Siegfried Line, which was almost as powerful as the Maginot Line. And french tanks took heavy losses due to the newly invented anti-tank mine that the Germans had used at great numbers at this place. And the infantry got machine gunned down by the bunkers that were positioned to support each other. Poland could probably have lasted for some extra months and given Germany heavy losses - which could probably have deleyd Germany's ability to take to the offensive against France. But Poland seemed lost to me, considering the backstabbing by Russia.
    1
  6. Gamelin ordered an attack across the Saar, which he considered to be the weakest point in the German line. The attack was sparheaded by the 504th Groupe de Battalions de Chars, consisting of 180 R35 tanks, backed up by the infantry of the Fourth North African Division. On the left were two additional North African Divisions (the 2nd and 3rd). and on the right were the 15th Mechanized Division and the 4th Colonial Division. And all those units were mechanized and well armed. The R35 tanks went to attack at Saturday September 9, and promtly went into a minefield. And 4 tanks of the 3rd Company was blown up, and another 3 got destroyed as they tried to work their way around the field. And as some tanker climed out of their tanks they fell victims to anti-personnel mines. And Sublieutenant Rosseau thus became the first allied tanker killed in World war II. In effect, by Monday the armoured spearhead was stopped, entangled in a maze of miefields and tank traps and unable to engage. And when the 26th Infantry regiment called for help, the tankers were unable to come to the infantry's assistence, owing to the mines. (source: The Blitzkrieg myth - John Mosier)
    1
  7. One cannot just assemble a million men at the German border and punch through it within a week. But atleast France did a try, and had they been succesful they would probably have expanded their offensive into Germany while most of the German army was fighting in Poland. But the French got stuck and didn't seem to have much faith in the ability to break trough well prepared defenses. And all this was contradicting all the military wisdom that existed back then which said that a huge tank force could always punch through any defences. Just like the bombers would always breaktrough into enemy territory and terrorbomb a country into submission. And the Allies also did several bomb raids on Germany in 1939, and to their own surprise did they not have any effect at all on their enemy. So what one can conclude is that Fuller's "breaktrough doctrine" was just as faulty as the fashionable Dohuets theory about bombers as a war winning weapon. Fact is that tanks usally don't do well against a well prepared enemy or in unsuitable terrain. Tanks and airplanes are not wonder weapons. Just as fortifications is not just some medieval nonsense. Great military thinkers like Erich von Manstein was one of the proponents of building fortifactions in pre-war Germany, even if those projects competed with funds and steel with other defensive strategies. And the Westwall was an improved copy of French Maginot line, but it had somewhat shittier guns than the french version. Nonetheless was it a formidable defensive position. And defensive lines came to play an important role in the war, such as the Gustav line which the allies couldn't breakthrough for 6 months despite their superior numbers. And even old shitty defensive lines could prove to be hard nuts to crack. The Mannerheim line was not as well equiped as the continental defensive lines, since Finland was the poorest country in Europe and its population was tiny, but still their defences proved difficult for the Russians, who got utterly humiliated by the finns both in the winter war and in the continuation war. And then we have the case of Metz, with old forts from the 1870s guarded by a dozen understrength Divisions mosly consisting of troops dubious quality - militia and such . But nevertheless could it hold back some of the best units in the American army, when they held back the well equiped Pattons 3rd Army for over 3 months. So no, I certainly do not consider fortifications to be a joke like you do. And I think tanks are more suited to flanking operations and attacks on open ground than attacking fortifications. And considering the hell of the first world war, I would say that attacking a well entrenched enemy with barbed wire and minefields ahead of him is indeed a very costly operation. The Siegfried line was no joke, and it existed for real. And it would have been a tough nut to crack.
    1
  8. The Germans also needed mobilization planning and planning of the logistics for an operation of that scale that you suggest. And such things take time also for the Germans. Hitler just didn't invade countries after he had a coffee break. France made an attack at the weakest point of the enemy and met unexpectedly hard resistance. So all that could be done for Poland meanwhile was a naval blockade on Germany and some bombings. And when the Soviet union invaded the country was doomed. And it all happened pretty fast. And I don't think that I have read a lot into your words, since you said that the Maginot line was just a speedbump that took Germans a few hours to break through without tank support.
    1