F. Warren Many of the warring nations in WW2 tried to run supplies to besieged islands or peninsulas with submarines, but the impact was tiny and almost wasteful since the demands FAR outstripped anything small but expensive submarines could carry. Notable examples were US supply runs to Bataan and Corregidor, British runs to Malta, Japanese runs 1943 onwards all over the Pacific where the enemy held air superiority, and Soviet runs to Crimea. It was a tactics of sheer desperation when no alternatives were available.
There was much more use of trade or supply submarines in WW II as both VersusARCH and James Mathis have mentioned. It cannot be called a successful long term strategy more one bred from desperation as space was at a super premium on board submarines of that era. Rescue/ resupply missions to cut off forces place the very highly trained and expensive to replace submarine and crew at great almost suicidal risk of detection and destruction. Obviously then the higher in value in monetary or military terms the various items of cargo are, the more such a journey could be considered a success. An example would be the Nazis sending Uranium, plus plans and parts for the Me 262 jet fighter to Japan. The downside to this is that when such cargo is carried, it can magnify the effort of your opponents to [in this case the Allies] to track, find and destroy the submarine. The Allies were aware through signals traffic intercepts of the manifest of the U-Boat and could then place a watching brief for the submarine, its departure date, approximate course, in transit meeting points [for fuel or transfer of passengers] and likely timings and dates.
James Mathis Italians too, with a few of their subs on those missions (one was named Luigi Torrelli) being seized by the Germans between the runs when Italy surrendered, continuing to serve in the same role under the Germans and finding themselves in Japanese bases at the time of Germany's surrender were seized by the Japanese, thus serving in all 3 majir axis navies.
We had a small scheduling snafu which means our Bloody April episode will be available on Saturday. That's why we are publishing another Out Of The Trenches episode, so you won't be bored.
The Great War Hey Indy l ask muself something,why are you talking mostly about situation on Western front.Were some some things happenning on eastern and Balkan front and how did solders spent time there if there wasnt no fights?
I am glad that you are aware of Dan Carlin's work. He is a great narrator and brings drama and excitement to all his podcasts. That his style is different from yours is true. Viva la difference !!!. Both of you are doing a great service to understanding this great epoch of history.
Bingo Mark. They were already heavily armoured (for the time) and could survive most things other than a direct artillery strike (which is actually bloody hard to do!). It was mechanical breakdowns and interior spalling incapacitating the crews that knocked out most tanks during WW1.
I have a question for out of the trenches : Did tunneling play a major role in the Western Front in the trenches? What were the aims? How did they work out? Also I just found out this channel a week ago so I've yet to catch up all the way...so if this has been covered already please point out the video Thanks!
Shubham Kejriwal the aims were to plant dynamite and or mines and they did play a large part in the western front but if you put your ear on your trench you may have been able to hear the enemy digging and there is a crater still in France called the peace pool.
I disagree that digging could have been heard from a trench. It would require a complete silence what there rarely, if ever, was. Warfare is insanely loud because of artillery and guns. I think the reason for the lack of digging tunnels in trench warfare was just the tedious and slow process. It's extremely slow and risky process. The ground above you could crumble on you at any moment if you wouldn't support it effectively. And even then under artillery the supports wouldn't last either. Also when aeroplanes became more common it would have been impossible to dig and build supports without them noticing it. This following information is from a totally different time period and war but I think it still holds an argument for WW1 trench-warfare: There are confirmed cases in Winter war that troops from the Red Army dug into Finnish lines. The reason why Russians managed to do this was that the tall snow provided cover and Finns saved their artillery shells for Russian offensives. Unlike in WW1 West front where there was constant artillery barrages from both sides. So in Western front if enemy didn't use artillery almost at all then it may have been possible.
Check out the film 'Beneath Hill 60', I think it was on Netflix for a while. It is a pretty good representation of this type of warfare. I think it didn't get a lot of widespread use (compared to other methods of attack) because it could only be used in areas where the enemy would be stationary for a VERY long time, in sufficient numbers for it to be worth the trouble, and for it to be in a strategically significant area that could not be taken or bypassed in some other way. Local soil types and water table depth were also factors to consider, as they could make tunneling extremely challenging in some areas.
this episode was fantastic. Indy's answer the the question about Dan Carlin was so on point. love both of these guys and reccomend both to everyone i know if they care about history or not. id love to see a collaboration between the two.
but wouldn't the ship/crew turn up eventually, even if it was after the war. It is highly unlikely that the crew would not tell anyone about what they did. It is also likely that the sub would also have turned up somewhere. So I doubt the crew stole the money.
jack dooley I wouldn't turn up I would continue to hide after the war because people would call you a coward and a thief and you could always go to South America or the Caribbean and take all the money and scuttle the U-Bout their for hiding it and these guys were civilians making a profit from blockade running so they had only one oath and that's to money and you could just take advantage after it seamed like you are dead too you could leave and just escape the hardship back home
Indy - absolutely fantastic summation about Dan Carlins incredible work! I've actually only just finished the entire 'Blueprint for Armageddon' series and it was absolutely brilliant and I think your Great War series compliments it beautifully. You are spot on about different narrative styles presenting the same information. Both equally entertaining and presenting the facts not only as we know them now but also as the participants of the time saw them. Dan gives a fantastic general overview and delves into the thoughts and feelings of those at various levels, including those at the Front, the Generals and the Politicians. He also gives a great insight into the political machinations that were going on all over the place BUT he doesn't go into terrific detail about many of the battles themselves in a traditional sense. Even the major battles. It's a general overview and a bit here or there on specific incidents. Which in no way detracts from his work at all. He evokes some terrible feelings and the dread the soldiers felt at the time going into the Line and the absolute horrors they faced. I'd highly recommend that anyone who enjoys the Great War series to go over to dancarlin.com and get the Blueprint for Armageddon series AND I'd highly recommend those who've heard Dan Carlin immediately subscribe to 'The Great War' and watch every episode. Both enrich each other ;)
Has it occurred to anyone, that a submarine with tons of money could have just been the best reason for a desertion of the crew, spending their life on a remote island with exotic women and Schnaps? This is the time before Radar, GPS and satellites were a thing.
The fact that this idea never even crossed my mind while watching this series really makes me question my authority for ever questioning why things weren't done at some point or another.
A great description of how we all tell history slightly differently. What I have always loved about TGW is how poignant many of the closings are. Always leave the viewer/listener thinking, it's what I try to do with The Bletchley Park Podcast.
Hi Indy & Co. A question for Out of the Trenches. When you look at the participants of World War I on for example wikipedia, you see these "strange" countries with the central powers, such as Dervish State and Emirate of Jabal Shamar, among others. Could you tell us more about these nations and the part they played in the war? These small central power countries seem to be even more overlooked than the obscure allied ones! Great job on the show!! Keep it up.
Pretty late to this, but in addition to the modifications Indy mentions, Beutepanzer tanks were modified to have a hatch in the cab roof, and sometimes a compass in a dome mounting alongside this hatch as well. In at least a few cases, the rails that carry the large wood unditching beam over top of the tank were modified to make sure the beam cleared this compass dome.
Greetings from the Bayou State Indy and Team, Thanks for what y'all do and for the show. As a Navy Veteran and Submariner, thank you for the emphasis and inclusion of submarine and naval history. I particularly like the uniform specials and would like to request uniform specials for the Navies of the warring nations. Thanks again!
One other thing was changed in captured Mark IV Tanks: There was more crew aboard. In a book I bought recently (Fred Koch - Beutepanzer im 1. Weltkrieg), there is mentioned that (male) Beutepanzer had a Commander, 2 Drivers, 2 Gearsmen, 3 Machinegunners, 2 Gunners and another Crewman for the signal post. That's a crew of 11 instead of 8. Somewhere in that book even a crew of 12 men is mentioned, but there is no explanation what the function of the 12th guy was. I can hardly imagine how crowded it must have been inside.
Indy and crew-love your series! My grandfather fought with the AEF in France in 1918, so your info is fascinating. Question: Many military historians have stated that in World War 2, the Germans were the best (most effective) soldiers, as compared to all the other warring nations. Was this also the case in World War 1? I haven't seen this kind of comparison mentioned regarding the Great War.
Hey Indy, Flo & Crew, I have a question for Out of the Trenches: Did Guards units such as the Coldstream Guards, the Leib Regiment or the Pavlov Grenadiers receive any special training or equipment privileges, and were they used in the same way as regular troops were used, or for more specialised action? Love your show, it’s absolutely fantastic - keep up the amazing work!!! And special greetings and thanks to the guys behind the cameras and desktops whom we hardly ever get to see, but who are crucial for your show :)
Kїкi Qz I think it would make for an interesting video. Ukrainian Sichovi Strilzi was a famous division, and Ukrainians fought on both sides of the war.
Austro-Hungarian Princes and Archdukes were actively trying to make Ukraine a kingdom (like Hungary) under the Austrian Empire. (They tried doing so with Poland and Croatia), so in a way, Ukraine could have also come to be if the Central Powers had won, or the war had never happened
Such a class act Indy and crew! It was awesome love y'all (pardon my Kentucky slang lol) to give a shout out to another content creator of the same subject I think it's cool how a lot of RU-vidrs are like a family of sorts!
it would have been a better vehicle that those of the Allies. However, it took too long to build and was too expensive to be of any real value. The tanks was designed too late in the war to be of any real value. Therefore, while on paper it may seem like a good idea. In practice, it was just too resource intensive to be of any real value.
Most of the Australian Divisions are in reserve right now in 1917 after the mauling at 1st Bullecourt and the victory at Lagnicourt a week ago. Not a lot happening until 2nd Bullecourt coming up in May.
Regarding the Deutschland and Bremen "trade submarines" - the explanation of why the Germans didn't build more of them, as well as what their mission actually was, etc., is a pretty complicated topic. There was a book about the subject published in 2015 by the US Naval Institute Press - "The Baltimore Sabotage Cell". Some parts are a little dry, but the book is extensively researched and sheds a lot of light on most parts of the story (there are things we'll never know, such as what happened to the Bremen). It's very interesting reading overall and as the title implies, it covers more than just the history of the cargo subs.
Hi Indiana Neidell, I have become big fan ever since I recently discovered your channel. Very informative videos. Cheers. I wish to know more about World War II also.
Hey Great War Crew got a question for Out of the Trenches. So I was doing some research on British mark 4 tanks and I noticed that on Wikipedia it says the Imperial Japanese Army had used them. I tried to research more about this but couldn't find anything. The question I have is how many tanks did Japan have in ww1 and what they were used for?
Question for out of the trenches. During this time was the a very large movment for Indian independence in the Raj and can you tell us about what Ghandi was up to aswell? Love the series keep it up, amazing work Indy and crew!
Hi Indy and team, love the show, keep doing what your're doing 'cause its amazing. I have a Question for Out Of The Trenchers. Can you explain how conscription worked during and before the war in all nations at length please. You mentioned that France had a 3 year service rule in one of your earlier videos for example (but I forgot which).
Hey Indy and crew, I have a question for out of the trenches. We're there any reports of generals being killed in action or the front line, or were their command posts too well protected for anything like this to happen? Love the show, keep up the good work :)
IIRC Indy did once did mention stats on Generals killed in action for the British army. Which there were. Its been a while and Im not sure if it was Indy or Lindybiege who talked about it. Yes, Generals did die on the frontlines too. The # of generals killed seems low until you factor in that it is like 1 general for 5,000+ privates. edit: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836 sites 200 British Generals killed in the ware. Officer losses at 17% vs enlisted 12 % edit 2: more details listed at 1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/143753-british-generals-killed-in-ww1/
Interesting that the Entente would protest the submarines. I mean all they were doing were blockade running which was an age old way of... running blockades. Wouldn't they have to complain about every ship that ran the blockade? Did they protest to Sweden for instance that they couldn't search the vessels entering her ports?
a lot of information packed perfectly. many thank. i think it's great that the german words are pronounced so well :-) many greetings from southern germany
Trade Submarines sounds like a great idea. I wonder "What If" that idea had been continued and that an entire fleet of them had been built. What effects would that have on the war itself I wonder. Great job. Loved this episode.
WHAT I THINK REALLY MAKES THIS SHOW SO GOOD AND UNIQUE IN COMPARISON TO OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF HISTORY IS ITS VERY APPROACH; WHILE YOU COULD LEARN OF WW1 EQUALLY WELL AND IN EVEN MORE DETAIL BY READING THE BOOKS THAT INDY AND THE CREW ARE STUDYING RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD FEEL LIKE READING OF THE EVENTS, THAT HAVE HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO, JUST LIKE IN ANY OTHER HISTORY BOOK, WHETHER IT BE ABOUT SUMERIANS OR VIETNAM WAR; THIS SHOW ON THE OTHER HAND, AT LEAST SPEAKING FOR MY SELF, BUT I BELIEVE FOR MANY OTHERS AS WELL, MAKES ME FEEL (AT LEAST FOR THE LENGTH OF AN EPISODE), LIKE I ACTUALLY LIVE DURING THE WW1, THAT THERE SOMEHOW EXISTS A "TV PROGRAM" AND INDY IS ITS ANCHOR WHO BRINGS US WEEKLY REPORTS ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THE WAR; WHILE GIVING THE ILLUSIONAL IMPRESSION OF PRESENCE, INDY NEVER THE LESS HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF RETROSPECTION SO HE CAN REPORT TO US IN MORE OBJECTIVE WAY THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF THE WAR WAS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW (THEN FOR INSTANCE THE UPCOMING OFFENSIVES AND SMUGGLING OF LENIN WOULD BE SECRETS AND WE WOULDN'T BE FINDING OUT ABOUT THEM TILL WEEKS LATER WHICH IS THE CASE IN THE WW1 CONTEMPORARY WEEKLY NEWSPAPER THAT I AM READING PARALLEL TO THIS SHOW AND INCLUDES A LOT OF ONE SIDED AND HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE REPORTS). NOT TO MENTION THE LIKABILITY OF INDY;) I WISH HE WOULD START APPEARING AS A GUEST IN FAMILY GUY WHERE HE COULD HAVE EPIC DEBATES ABOUT WORLD CONQUEST WITH STEWIE AND BRIAN GRIFFIN!
I have a question for the channel: My great grand father was stationed at an artillery fort in Belgium. He was a belgium soldier, After it was destroyed by the Germans he was resqued by German soldiers while his skin was almost competely burned. He was taken to Germany and after a few days transported to England. He made a wonderfull recovery and went back into action the last year of the war. Did these transports of wounded soldiers happen frequently and did the soldiers rank have any influence on a possible return home after being caputered. Thanks for the awesome videos! Greetings from belgium.
Indy, have you and/or the crew visited the American National WWI museum in Kansas City, MO? If not, they have a tremendous photograph collection, and I highly recommend a visit, as it does a great job of depicting the horrors of the Great War
Read a great book by Lowell Thomas many many years ago about the German Uboats in WW1. One chapter was regarding a Uboat which actually cruised up the Hudson River after the US entered the war. It allegedly surfaced for a while and some of the crew were admiring the lights of Broadway. The book is long out of print. Have you heard of that escapade or any like it?
For Out Of The Trenches: Hey Indy and team, greetings from London. I'm a huge fan of the show I can tell everyone works very hard. My great grandfather fought in the British Royal Marines in the Second World War and thus, I wish to join the Royal Marines also. My question is what was the role of the Royal Marines in World War One, and did any other nations have Marines and if so, how were they used and where were they deployed? Regards Lewis Prunty
The Royal Marines also fought at Gallipoli alongside the Australians at Anzac Cove and at Helles. =From memory, were the last to leave during the evacuation of Helles.
Hey Indy and crew, Greetings from New Jersey! I have a Question, I have been reading some WWI books and have often wondered what effects a gas attack had on equipment? I have read of a protection lubricant to apply to rifles during an attack but what about the big guns, mortars, machine guns, helmets, etc. Did they all turn black as chorine is a great catalyst for oxidsation on steel. Your video on gas attacks was very informative, and you guys too a great job every week! Thanks and keep up the good work!
Hey great show! Here is a question: Were there ever Dutch, Danish or even Swiss volunteers with in the German army? If so I would love to hear about it!
Hey Indy, Flo, and Gang, I have a few questions(and requests). (1) Why did the British not send a minesweeper up the Dardanelles? (2) What are you going to do once the "Week-By-Week" is done (3) Can you please do a Bio on Patton and, if possible, can you make a few playlists for each major offensive? And Finally, WHY DID NEITHER SIDE JUST DIG INTO THE ENEMY TRENCH? If you had a machine gun covering your entrance, you could just waltz right in and take the enemy trenches. Thanks, from Borus.
There are three problems with tunneling: 1. There was a big risk of cave-ins, especially if one or both sides decided to launch some artillery shells. 2. The enemy might get wise and prepare for the tunneling enemy. They might try to make the tunnel collapse or they might set up a machine gun to surprise said tunneling enemy, since said enemy wouldn't be able to avoid the machine gun bullets. 3. It took time and men, which made it not worth doing very often. It was just too risky compared to the gains you could reasonably expect. You'd get a trench, but a standard assault could get the same result without funneling troops into killzones.
I knew Indie was an outlaw biker astronaut, but I didn't know he's a scholar and entertainer. I still think his escape form the Black Dolphin is his greatest accomplishment. PS Is his brother Greg from " Too Old To Grow Up ".
Dear Indy and Crew, I believe the most important factor about the subs was that the they could not be made large enough to be used economically. That meant that the Germans would have had to build many of them, for which Germany neither had enough raw materials, available production sites, nor the workforce. Also, I believe, the German admiralty expected that the US was not as neutral as other neutral countries and did not want to risk building a fleet of trade subs but be left without a trading partner. In their logic, it seemed more likely to win in the field than at sea.
I have a question for the next out of the trenches: since I found out that night raids where a thing, how exactly did they deal with the prisoners they took? I think it would be pretty hard to take prisoners across all of no man's land unnoticed. love the show Indy, you and the crew's great show is getting me through some rough times.
I have a question for out of the trenches: With the use of artillery destroying the landscape and the building of trenches and fortifications, how long did the land of the western front take to recover? Were many of the trenches and fortifications still around by 1940?
Hi. Some thoughts about the trade submarines. Although very advanced for their time, trade submarines are not really economically viable. Very expensive to build, and although they were some of largest submarines around, their loading capacity was somewhat like a small cargo vessel. Hence they also were only employed to purchase vital, expensive goods. Rubber and copper which Germany lacked severely for tires, gaskets and shells for example. These subs were indeed later al modified into cruiser submarines with heavy guns (I believe up to 2x 15cm) and 2 torpedo tubes. Their size, range and endurance made them very useful to stay at sea for long time looking for lonely ships to pick off, employing mainly the guns.
What about the battle of Hamel in 1918; the first action of American troops on the western front. I don't think you have an episode on this. It was not a major battle but was probably one of the most significant of the war.
I have a question for Mr.Neidall. Could you discuss body armour during WW1, mainly the Sappenpanzer? Was it heavy? and if it was, was it worth it? Did it lessen the casualties on the German side.
I had never even heard of the trade submarines before. Very interesting. I'm guessing the converted trade submarines would give them much longer operational time considering the extra space for consumables. Then again the reduced speed and overall larger size must have been a disadvantage. I wonder if the occupants preferred a trade submarine or a "regular " german submarine.
Hello Indy and Crew,do you know the story of the german pirate in WW1 Seeteufel Graf Luckner? He was the captain of a sailing ship which was covered by the flag of norway. so it could get behind the sea blockade and destroy british ships with hidden cannons. please make one special episode about that!
I have a question, I was watching the series Peaky Blinders and in the show it's mentioned that the main character as well as Winston Churchill fought at Verdun? Did any British people fight at Verdun? Love the show keep it up!
First of all, great show, I've been a subscriber since the beginning and I think you guys are doing an awesome job! My question is this, did units from eastern European nations that the Germans liberated from Russia (Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, Poland, etc.) ever fight on the western front or the Italian front? For that matter, did they ever fight in any major battles at all during the war?
it is the best historian podcast I know, I recommend it to everybody.... I have a special question...Last week I have read that some historians believe that the Germans would have won the great war if they had renouched any offensive at the west (not leaving the Hindenburg linie or operations like Michael) instead attacking the near east and planning an offensive against Indian, could be this succesful/more succesful that their plans against France after the defeat of Russia
out of the trenches question: Thanks Indy and crew. What was tattooing like for the soldiers and sailors during the progression of the war ? I assume they became more popular.
I've read that, if a U-boat got lucky and sank a fully-laden cargo vessel, it had paid for itself. The materiel denied to the Allies was worth more than the sub and its' crew, in hard economic terms.
I have a question for out of the trenches. In WW2 paratroopers were used, I was curious if they did this in WW1, I did some research. I believe it was the Americans that planned an air assault with troops jumping out of planes behind enemy lines, but I can't find as to what happened to the plans. Do you know?
Very interesting. I just sort of assumed submarines were too slow or limited in cargo space for the idea of going under a blockade to be practical. Could have been a very different war had Germany pursued trade with the u-boats instead of interdiction from the very start.
I have a question for out of the trenches what was the country of Cyprus like In ww1 was it independent or was it part of a country thank you Indy and the the crew good luck with the show
Hey Indy and crew, love the show, keep on the good work! So, I was wondering if there were weapons that, although not illegal (like the flame-thrower), were hated so much by the soldiers, that if an enemy soldier was captured with them he would probably not be taken prisoner? I´ve heard such stories but I´m not sure it they were real
This is a question for out of the trenches did the Japanese manufacture their own aircraft or did they use other planes from other nations and what type of reconnaissance did they use thanks for the videos
I'd never heard of the trade submarines before. wow. great work. as for how it was stopped it would seem there are 2 issues. 1) limited shipyard facilities and these big boats probably took more time and materials than the smaller, non-transatlantic style boats used in the north sea. and 2)they ran out of clients. by late 16 early 17 there were very few countries still willing to trade with Germany. The US and Brazil had been po'ed b the unrestricted submarine warfare and with out a large market to deal with, there was no point.
Wassup Indy and crew! In Robert K. Massie's "Castles of Steel", it says that at the beginning of hostilities between Britain and Germany, British ships like the cable ship 'Teleconia' had grappled and cut five German telegraph wires. They went to Brest, Vigo, Tenerife, and two to New York. Was cutting telegraph wires to neutral countries considered a violation of a countries neutrality? If so, what was the reaction from neutral countries such as the U.S.? Thank you and keep up the good work!
