D-Day Tanks: Operation Overlord's Strangest Tanks 

I totally agree. The Greatest generation.

They, unknowingly, destroyed Europe and the wrong team. Now, the whole world is infected with this weird bolshevik-commie grossness.

My Father (British Army) landed on D+1 and he often recalled how deadly and effective the Crocodile was. Clearing out the aftermath of a Crocodile attack was something everyone tried to avoid for obvious reasons. I find it ironic that the Germans hated the Croc crews and would shoot them out of hand, given that it was the Germans who first introduced modern-style flamethrowers to the battlefield!

@@oldfella3919 in a post here, I have related my Father in Law's experience commanding a troop of Crocs later in the war.

@@oldfella3919 The Nazis were hypocrites? Say it ain't so!

More likely Crocodile were often used against defensive bunkers often manned by low quality garbage German static infantry or osttruppen who often were not equipped with proper AT weapons. And even then, German soldiers abandoning bunkers as soon as a Crocodile begin burning it did not always have to do with fear - they were trained to get out asap anyway, with the simple logic being just like inside a burning house - massive flame around consumed all the oxygen soon, thereby suffocating anyone inside quicky, and concrete bunkers likely had even poorer ventilation and would run out of oxygen even quicker. A flamethrower tank like Crocodile maybe useful in early WW2 where foot soldiers had little proper AT weapons, but by 1944 against the Germans, the effective range of its flamethrower became a double-edged sword, as it also put the tank inside effective range of handheld AT launchers of Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck, which they could well penetrate even the thick 150mm front of Churchill, not to mention its weaker side armor where soldiers tends to aim at.

It wasn't that effective on the niponese they mostly dird rather than surrender

Married to his sister or was Monty married to his?

@@moblinmajorgeneral monty was married to hobart's sister

But the point is that Hobart came up with a solution that saved many British and Canadian lives.

Curious coincidence but hardly odd on the realtionship aspect They were members of a pretty rarified social circle after all Very peculiar that Montgomery kicked him out of the Desert Rats 'though - So WHY did he?

@@babboon5764 One quick search later ..... Quote: Lt. Gen. H. M. “Jumbo” Wilson, while praising his knowledge and training skills, condemned Hobart for his quarrelsome nature, accused him of “lacking in stability,” and recommended his relief. Wilson’s boss, Middle East Command Gen. Archibald Wavell, agreed Presumably if there had been an 'Ungrateful Steward of the Bar medal' Jumbo would have has one with a bar

i read this like 3 mins into the video and i was convinced you were talking about crocodiles. was imagining units of guys with crocodiles commanding them to attack

Tbf, it's(war) only as barbaric as it ever needs to be. As the warfighters make it be. Sadly, at least one side tends to be an amoral collection of mercenaries with no compunction about brutality, forcing the less aggressive side to either keep up or fall behind. We saw it in ww1, (chemical warfare) and ww2 (napalm, and bombing raids of cities) and even some more modern conflicts. War is a sad state, but a natural one. One we should prepare for at all times, lest we get caught unawares.

Your war story about the German reaction to the Crocs is very interesting and akin to a war diary from the Canadians in September 1916 after the first tank attack towards Courcelette when male and female versions attacked and enfiladed German trenches. A captured officer remarked that ‘the use of tanks was not war but butchery’ such a remark after two years of trench warfare really evokes the terror of such a weapon and a fire breathing one especially so. Thanks for your bringing this story back to life.

@@stillcantbesilencedevennow It seems that portable flame throwers were used in WW1. Still trying to find confirmation. Does anyone know the formula for "Greek-fire", which could not be extinguished by water? Supposedly squirtable by handpump against men and ships? Nothing new under the sun!

@@tc2851 Butchery...? My grandfather, artillery observer in the Belgian army suffered lung, and skin damage due to German clorine, and mustard gas attacks WW1. Denial, lies, and propaganda everywhere! POW castrations in Ukraine/Russian war...

And let's hope history doesn't rhyme.

👍

🇨🇿🇸🇯🇳🇱

Don't you mean RUSSIA that actually defeated Germany and had them on the Run before the allies even turned up. They also defeated Japan the reason the US used the bomb to make them surrender to America not Russia.

​@@benmanning4340🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 the people who actually defeated Germany once again fighting Nazis backed by the west in Ukraine

Even the photo stills of the petard they used for this very video show the crew loading it from inside.

@@Halalaka I think "expose himself to enemy fire" is what they were going for, but the expression used, while analogous, is obviously an exaggeration. Not sure that I'd call opening a hatch under enemy fire and sticking your arms out "brief", not matter how short a time it takes if I was the one actually doing it. An MG42 could put an awful lot of bullets into the local area during that "brief" time period.

@@aaronleverton4221 He didn't just say they were exposed to enemy fire though, he specifically said "climb up through the hatch". Climbing through something would imply your sticking at least your upper torso through an object, it's not an expression you would use at all to describe just putting your hand through it.

@@Halalaka Tell me, what do find to be meant by "...obviously an exaggeration"? Also, the first comment wasn't really meant as a direct reply to you, not sure why I didn't notice I'd done that.

​@@aaronleverton4221Well the time spent on the ineffective MG fire that'd be directed at an AVRE would in reality be spent running if you had somehow already survived the first shot.

The Crocodile...the psychological effect cracked even the most fanatical defensive positions. The primeval terror of spewing flames negated everything it confronted

The DD ... On my visit to the beaches saw a 50mm gun emplacement with a few 75mm holes in it from DDs rolling up, bet the boys on the beach were happy about that

Were the Bobbin and Fascine tanks used on D-Day? Any pictures?

As I understand there is another DD Valentine 200 to 300 yards from Boscombe pier there are also some others near the forth road bridge.

The most effective? That depends very much on what problem you need one for. If you need to cross a canal, then a bridge layer is the most effective, but if you need a passage through a minefield, then a bridge layer becomes as useful as a chocolate fireguard. For that job you need a flail (Crab). That's the thing with Hobart's funnies, they were ALL equally useful in their specialized job, but that specialization reduced their effectiveness in almost all other circumstances. Can you imagine trying to navigate a Crab through the back-streets of a small French town? Nightmare. All that said, I'd choose the Churchill Crocodile as the most USEFUL of the funnies, as the thought of a tank with both a big gun AND a flamethrower is a straight 10 on the "Brown Trousers" scale (as opposed to the regular tank's 8, and the Crab's 9). Still useless if you need to cross a canal though...

You missed what was stated in the video ... the crew rode outside (on top of) the tank but within the skirt while the tank was "swimming" ashore.

@@JeromeKatchin-jr1um Actually it was you that missed what was stated in the video i.e. at around 11.10 of the video, the man being interviewed (John Pearson), clearly stated that "the crew would get down under armour, for the last run ashore". Obviously this was done when the 'floating tank' got within range of the guns and being privy to the well-known fact that canvas offers inadequate protection against bullets.

You are both right. The crews generally rode on top of the tank until the very last moment when they crewed it as normal. I believe the driver was the exception being that he drove the tank off the landing vessel until the beach. 👍

There were many accidents while the crews were training, especially when they tried some frogmen equipment for emergency escape, so they dropped the idea.

The DD's routed to Omaha sank because they were released too far from shore in rough seas. Fortunately, almost all of the crews were able to abandon, and were picked up.

Other than the fact that some of it is fiction.

As Tom Hank's character said, none of the DD tanks made it onto Omaha. One of the reasons the landing was so costly.

Saving Private Ryan?? Why is the narrator referencing this film all the time? It's a fictional story, and obviously usamerican hype. Bet no surviving veterans were even asked about that day by the author.

❤qqqqewtewetwtwtwtwewewt

There are actual pictures dating back to WW1 of Mk5 tanks being trialled in an AVLB role and, of course, there are numerous pictures of them with large fascines fitted. So in theory, the Armd Farmer role can be traced back to WW1.

Former 32AER Cent AVRE driver here! Left in Feb. 1990 so missed all the stuff that happened outside of Germany.

Thank you very much 😊

Good on you mate, I just buy stuff from their shop because I am selfish like that and now I have a KING TIGER SHELL...next to my TV!

Does that make up for him botching greece, crete, norway and almost botching north africa?

It was they who brought back the flame thrower as a weapon in ww1. They had no problem converting char b1 French tans to flame thrower tanks once captured.

@@patrickporter1864 But aggressors have never accepted equality in war…. Just look at Russia today…. Using nuclear power stations as artillery bases to avoid retaliatory strikes….

I thought bagpipes were unfair because torture is banned

@@alexroselle Good one :-)

@@patrickporter1864 They also tried Pz II, Pz III and 38(T), but they werent very effective.

That's what I thought, suprised to hear "Assault Vehicle" but it's most likely to be both depending on the commentator.

As an ex AVRE and AVLB driver it's definitely Armoured

"Assault" was used during WW2 but even then, there was debate what AVRE actually stood for and both "Assault" and "Armoured" were used.

I worked at Vickers and the AVRES were known as armoured vehicle Royal Engineers.

@@trevorashworth7307 They were originally (1944) called Assault Vehicle apparently which I assume was changed to Armoured as they became more general usage.

J F C Fuller was a brilliant early British tank advocate... but it was the Germans who took his ideas and made them real.... they do get the credit for that! It's one thing to theorise, its entirely another thing to put the ideas into effective practice.

@@trooperdgb9722 Absolutely, very good point!

Yet because of the Crocs he had a forever after to be horrified of. Would he survive those experiances otherwise? That’s the big question.

They're describing their dad's PTSD - ​@@mickvonbornemann3824 have a word with yourself

I read an account of Croc being ordered to a crossroads to clear the enemy from the buildings. It went to the centre and just rotated the turret flaming the full 360 degrees. The enemy that could had fled but I don't think the crew knew there was wounded laying on the floors as the flame entered the windows. They say any crew captured by the Germans were immediately shot, so I don't think it will have been a popular position!!

​@@TeddyBear-ii4ycThe flamethrower is on the body of the tank not the turret

@@kylekinsey2624 👍 You've got me there. I think the point of the story was the immobile wounded who couldn't get out the way. I think the book was "Overlord" by Max Hastings?

I think you mean the V1s. You couldn't hear V2s until they 'landed'.

@4ebees You are probably correct, I bet he saw both the v1 and v2. He was at the docks coming off his ship from the United States when he saw the first one come over head. He told me he couldn't believe that they weren't aiming them at the docks where the fuel and ammunition were being unloaded.

@@Nordic67 I believe "aiming" those weapons is a bit of a stretch... I'm sure your grandad thought they were aiming at him!!! ... thank him for his service, from a grateful brit! 👍👍

@@Nordic67 That would be the V1. They were like small planes. The V2 could be observed launching (in France) but as it's flight path took it to the edge of space no-one saw them on their way down. Scary times for all the people living then. Glad he made it through! :)

Always nice to hear an American Anglophile! It sometimes feels like too many yanks forget that they even had any allies, let alone proper partners in winning the war. Cheers!

Thankyou Sir ,I noticed you used the Word Adept .its better used in Conjunction with the Word adapt. British Soldiers are taught be adept at being adapt .No plan Runs smoothly has you join with the Enemy .So being able to think on your Feet and adapt to the situation you find yourself in

Churchill was, or could have been a US Citizen, depending on your point of view

Churchill was a brilliant speaker, a compelling writer, and sot-ridden alcoholic and pathological liar. Right after the French armistice with Germany in June 1940, Winston was with his son Randolph at Chartwell, the family estate. Randolph asked his father "now that France has surrendered, how are you planning on winning this war?" Winston never missed a beat, replying "I'm going to drag the Americans into it..." And he did. After all, it had worked in 1917. By the way, with his prolific spending and out-of-control drinking, Chartwell was in danger of being sold to pay his debts when a wealthy Jewish benefactor from South Africa paid the debt to save the estate. However, everything comes with a price. Furthermore, Frederick Lindemann (or Viscount Cherwell, as he was titled, but Churchill referred to him as "the Prof"), had immigrated from Germany as a child in the 1880s when his father was going to be arrested for embezzlement as a bank director. As a result, he absolutely despised the Germans, blamed them for all of his his woes, shortcomings and sins, and was an outspoken advocate for the so-called "area bombing" which killed hundred of thousands of women and children. Yea, quite a guy, that Lindemann.

@sealteamtwo117 Of Course Britain got Japan to Attack Pearl Harbour to get the Americans into the Second World War. Then made Hitler Declare war on America 1st .Yeah all Churchills Fault.

You're talking about the Pacific, right? Would have helped a lot there. Might have changed the pattern of the Japanese not surrendering fast enough, as well.

@@gameburn178 The Marines deployed in the Pacific, and my specific reference to Iwo Jima is to an island in the Bonin group 600 miles south southeast of Tokyo... and still didn't cause any significant surrenders by Japanese troops.

The landings on Omaha were also off target - to the extent that they landed nearer to the heaviest defences than planned.

Clearly, you know best, albeit without engaging with the content of the video. Well done sir!

Why did the yanks drop them off so far out from omaha.

I don't believe any DDs had the 76mm gun - at least not those used in WW2. That would be an interesting exhibit you remember then.

@@kirotheavenger60 Yeah, I had built several Sherman model kits and I saw that right away. But Aberdeen is where they tested prototypes. Maybe they built it later in 1944 and decided they no longer needed another production run. Only the Army knows.

Lots of very clever British thought inter war that was just ignored except by the Germans. One politician was still promoting Horse Cavalry after WW1.

Blitzkrieg wasn't fast tank assault, it was unrelenting cavalry advance day and night with the use of pervitin. Germany had a deep history of exactly this kind of manoeuvre warfare (Bewegungskrieg), thanks somewhat to denmark. The term blitzkrieg was erroneous really, as western journalists applied it to the german propaganda that implied it's 'mechanized' division were heavily supported by tanks and aircraft, whereas in practice that was on paper and all they really had was horses and a hell of a lot of stimulant drugs. While we anticipated Kesselschlacht at dunkirk, in reality the mobile infantry were starting to hallucinate, had no supply lines, artillery support, air support (forward airfields were not ready) and thus they were in no position to actually run british forces into the sea, not withstanding the royal navy artillery support. Not to discredit hobart and his effect on tank thought and probably on people like Rommel who actually achieved these feats with armour, it was in spite of german doctrine not due to adopting it. In reality this theory was vital in my view- as britain was able to develop countermeasures in lieu of practical experience. In ww2 we see perhaps the most consistently competent engagements in military history. It's a bit cliche but- its much more complicated than that.

Hobart and Liddel-Hart wrote the book on tank tactics. Both the British and Germans read it. The British ignored it. The Germans adopted it. The British started to take notice of its teachings in North Africa. Rommels counter was anti-Tank gun ambushes. Allied victory there was through air power, command of sea lanes and the Torch landings introducing US forces.

​@@keithdurose7057The British way of fighting major wars is 1) act as part of a coalition with continental partners 2) deploy only a relatively small expeditionary land force in support 3) use its powerful navy to control the seas and choke the enemy's supplies. In 1939-1940 the primary land force facing Germany in the west was France and UK was expecting to work in conjunction with them.

And the Sherman fired a much larger HE round

Thanks!

You can bet that any crew of a flamethrower tank would not be taken alive by the enemy if their vehicle got disabled. Flamethrowers were very effective against bunkers and fortified positions, but universally loathed.

The crocodile is aknowlaged as the most effective weapon system ever produced. 97% combat effective. If they had infantry support visible to the germans they just had to give a blast of flame from a distance as a warning and most of the enemy would surrender

@@scrubsrc4084 That would seem pretty intimidating...and yet in the Pacific, it was a completely different story; very few instances of any Japanese surrendering, even in the face of those horrid weapons.

@seanericcallaghan2548 thay makes it no less effective. Run away, surrender or bbq. Its all a win

@@seanericcallaghan2548 The Japs were a totally different kettle of fish, for them it was 'Death before Dishonour'. Hirohito was a living god to most Japs so it was an honour to die for him and the homeland, even in excruciating pain.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the IWMs videos are lacking. I've noticed that they often show the wrong clips for the subject matter, i.e., a clearly recognisable Konigstiger when they are talking about a Tiger 1 or American troops when they are talking about Brits. I have chastised them for it on occasion with no reply from them but, strangely, have been slated by other contributors. You would think that, probably, the foremost War museum in the world would be able to do better.

so much better than tv