Here is a map showing defensive positions and landing zones at Omaha you can reference while listening. www.historyofwar.org/Maps/maps_omaha_landings.html
Very frustrating to hear the speaker saying "this position" or whatever, in a picture he is evidently pointing at. when there's no visual available. But very interesting after so many years to hear new aspects of the situation. The resulting near-disaster of Omaha makes so much more sense.
It makes me want to order this book, which I suppose was why he does these talks. I greatly enjoyed his talk. To you, Rick, I even went to goggle earth to try to find the locations…didn’t work.
If you had the choice of getting to hear his talk or not (since you weren't there) I would think I would like to hear it and say thank you instead of complaining.
Wow. He seems to really have an axe to grind with regard to Hobart's Funnies. Not sure I can agree with him on many of his points there, particularly when he suggests that deep wading tanks would have been more effective on the Normandy beaches than DD Shermans and that dozer tanks could have been serious alternatives to flails and fascine carriers. For instance, I'm not sure how you would successfully launch a deep wading tank at any appreciable distance from the beach in Normandy given the depth of the water off shore and the sea state at the time of the invasion (basically you would have to bring wading tanks right up on shore exposing the LCTs to concentrated enemy fire, a circumstance that the DDs were intended to avoid). Also, using a dozer tank to fill in 6-10 foot deep tank traps with dirt (unconsolidated sand in this case, so there's no telling what kind of weight the infill would bear) would have taken a hell of a long time relative to just dropping a few ditch-filling bundles (which will certainly bear the weight of medium tanks) in there, and attempting to clear mines with a dozer is just a really bad idea. It the Americans had been more successful with the Funnies on D-Day I wonder if he would now have a very different perspective on the matter.
He's totally US biased. He once claimed the US Army was the most effective of WW2, which is a totally bizarre thing to claim. Thanks to Zalogas US bias now many people think the Sherman was the best and most survivable tank of WW2. Take Zaloga with a pinch of salt as I do.
@@lyndoncmp5751 His basic argument seems to be that Hobart's Funnies were crap since the Americans didn't have a very good experience with them. The answer couldn't be that the Americans responsible for them were incompetent now could it?
@@lyndoncmp5751, well, actually, the Sherman probably was the best tank of the war. Not only did it have good tactical mobility, it had great strategic mobility. (Easily transported in huge numbers across oceans, then moved en masse by truck or train to the front.) It had good firepower and armor compared to most of its opponents. (When better armed and armored designs appeared, the Sherman was also updated.) It was reliable and easily repaired when needed.
@@thegreatdominion949, did you hear his very first point? The British had the most success because they had full battalions of armor on the beach, as opposed to the almost total lack of tanks on Omaha. The Funnies had an impact but not as much as large numbers of conventional tanks. Also, your theory that dozer tanks were ineffective for mine removal is patently false. They were and continue to this day doing the job.
@@Chilly_Billy Don't confuse dozer tanks with tanks with mine clearing ploughs (Hobart had at least one design of the latter in WW2). There is a difference. One is designed to dig up buried mines and to withstand mine explosions and the other isn't. Almost certainly a Sherman dozer tank in WW2 would have not done an effective job of mine clearance and most would have not survived their first trip into a minefield. You should also note the number of flail type mine clearance vehicles that remain in service worldwide (see the following video). Compared to the mine plough, the flail is a more efficient system which is usually adequate for most applications. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CqB83LaRo0M.html&ab_channel=IncredibleFacts
Interesting that mr Zaloga makes a dig at British Historians not having checked the US Military archives, and then almost immediately goes on to make a basic error when it comes to British military organisation that he would have learned had he returned the favour.... So I will elucidate. The British would *not* have called a battalion a regiment, they would have, and still do, call it a battalion. Like US Regiments a British Regiment is made up of multiple Battalions, UNLIKE a US Regiment the British Regiment at the time was a purely adminstrative organisation, not a Combat formation. In combat the British Equivilant to the Regiment was the Brigade, made up of three battalions, usually though not always from different Regiments. Thus when a unit is referred to as the 12th Royal Welch Fusiliers, that does NOT mean they are the 12th Regiment of Royal Welch Fusiliers, it means they are the 12th BATTALION, Royal Welch Fusiliers. 14th Royal Tank Regiment, same, 14th Battalion, RTR, There is only ONE Royal Welch Fusiliers, only ONE Royal Tank Regiment, etc etc. This system derived from the fact that Regiments were given specific recruitment areas, except a few such as the already mentioned RTR, and specialists such as the Artillery, Intelligence Corps, Royal Signals etc etc. Thus, if you take the RWF also already mentioned, they recruit exclusively from South Wales and the Welsh Border, thus ANY Infantry recruited in that area will join the RWF. This is the reason why Regiments with large recruitment areas such as the RWF could raise a large number of Battalions, 35 in the case of the RWF during WWI. Each battalion is around 800 men strong, which means at its height the RWF had 28,00 men in the field wearing the RWF cap badge. That is more than Three DIVISIONS worth of combat troops.... See why the statement that the British would have called them Regiments is so wrong? You made the assumption that the old British regimental system is similar to the US, and it is not.
Good points. I would add that in the 19th century, and as a result mainly of British military strategy shaped by the army's role as "imperial enforcer", all regiments had two battalions - with one serving overseas and one at home in the depot being the norm. It was the sudden need for hundreds of thousands of more men in WW1 that saw the number of battalions a regiment could have, rise so dramatically and somewhat irregularly.
Man spends an hour and twenty talking about why Omaha took so many casualties, one of the last questions "Why do you think Omaha took so many casualties?"
I'm always sad to see petty negative comments directed at someone who has obviously done a great deal of research on a historical subject. If you have his level of hard work under your belt, I'll listen to you. I don't have anything near Zaloga's expertise, but have read about every book on WW2 and seen about every video. Which is why I'm pleased to hear his comments about Hobart's Funnies and the reality of the air bombardment, which both are invariably presented in the television programs, but apparently in a misinformed way. And, yes, he has opinions about things that are not strictly factual. Disagreement of opinion exists for almost any historical topic. So, if you have an alternative view on any topics, and are angry with his opinion, open your mind and grow up.
_"he who defends everything defends nothing."_ Some truth in that. Also, _he who attacks everything attacks nothing._ Eisenhower's broad front comes to mind.
@@jackbarnhill9354 Just about. *If the Soviets got into Denmark, it would have been a failure.* If Montgomery's 40 division thrust was used they would have been in Berlin in early 1945, or maybe even before. Even the top German generals agreed that the German army could not stop a concerted thrust to the North and then onto the North German Plains, with a nice flat ride to Berlin for tanks. Monty saw the North German Plains as the key. So did the Soviets as they swept west and nearly into Denmark. The British and Canadians made a desperate effort to successfully stop the Soviets, even turning their guns on them to stop their advance. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OWcRl7Q7pGs.html The top brass Americans were out of their depth.
@@johnburns4017 the allies couldn't concentrate forces effectively in France allied logistics were clogged up horribly. The allies took the path of least resistance which was to take the terrain until the Germans had a natural defensive line which happened to be the Rhine. The allies were anticipating significantly less hedgerow fighting and much more fighting over the rest of France. I really don't see how you can say the US high command was put of their depth.
@@seanmac1793 Once Antwerp was fully operational supply was not a problem. Eisenhower assessed that a northern thrust would get across the Rhine in Market Garden and that enough supplies were there to do that and the push of the US Third army to the east. Market Garden had a lot of supplies dropped by planes. He under resourced Market Garden. Despite hedgerow fighting, Overlord came in ahead of schedule with 22% less casualties than predicted. The allies never took the path of least resistance. Eisenhower gave in to his egotistical generals who wanted glory and newsreel footage, going their own way chasing a defeated enemy on the run - until they reached the German border then got a big shock, being stopped and hammered a lot, showing up their inexperience.
Like most NYMAS lectures at the time. It originally was an MP3 upload on the NYMAS website. Now it's on YT. His words are very informative. It's too bad it couldn't hold your attention.
The Ostruppen were in France thanks to Hitler. A large number of Ostruppen served Germany in Russia, as anti-partisans, transport workers, laborers, etc. Many were formed into actual fighting battalions. Others served in German units as what were known as Hiwi, who were often involved in combat. Many were anti-Communist and joined out of principle. When Hitler got reports about these units, he decided that there was concern about their loyalty and security issues. Therefore, the solution was to send ost units west away from Russia. As described above, it was a bad plan.
Why had others more luck? There had also been reinforcements on the other beaches in 1944 meaning both fortifications and units. Rommels Devil Gardens was also a technical term but that referrs to Rommels El Alamein mine fields, not France. Deception could not fool Rommel. No need for a port but a special kind of beach.
Why were the gun emplacements overlooking the landings not attacked by tank-buster aircraft - Mosquitos, Beaufighters and others, which were armed with heavy cannon? These planes were capable of being flown from carriers, and had been effectively used against tanks.
The ‘softening up’ by the air and naval strikes pre-troop landings failed to have effect because they flat out missed almost everything, causing the massive casualty numbers. They only realized how much when allied troops began landing.
@@mynamedoesntmatter8652 if you listen to the lecture, the artillery behind Omaha was not spotted by Allied intelligence. Otherwise, efforts to eliminate them would have been made
Be glad you get to listen to a talk where you weren't there instead of griping about no visuals. Pictures of the casino can be found here: www.atlantikwall.co.uk/atlantikwall/fn_p_wn72.php
There were visuals. But the lecture was not video recorded -- only audio recorded. This was the routine for NYMAS. The NYMAS lecture collection is on their site.
Short answer is they missed. The more complicated answer is the bombers released their bombs to far inland. The reasoning for this is the allies were very concerned about friendly fire from the bombers hitting the invasion Force so the bombers release point was very conservative. To make the bombers more effective the bombers would have needed to release their bombs sooner.
Did you listen to the lecture? 1) they overshot the beach and 2) they did not know of the high concentration of artillery inland. Undiscovered. The known German 716th ID guns WERE targeted. But 352nd ID's field artillery was not discovered before the invasion. Intel failure.
He says (or implies) that German mines couldn't survive submergence in sea water and that they were not deployed on the beach as a consequence. If that were true, then why were all the obstacles on the Normandy beaches (which were fully submerged at high tide) topped off with Teller mines? He's talking nonsense there I'm afraid.
Without the footage you're wasting your time listening to this. The entire lecture he refers to slides and visuals, without them, its not worth listening to.
You learned nothing? Wow. FYSA: This is an audio recording. Like most NYMAS lectures at the time. It originally was an MP3 upload on the NYMAS website. Now it's on YT.
It's also quite disingenuous from a self-styled expert to imply that US ground forces were more "efficient" than the Russian equivalent based on casualty rates. There was nothing special or efficient about US-British forces on the western front, other than a massive aerial advantage (30:1) Also, a massive chunk of Russian losses during the war, took place in the very first months when entire armies were captured by the Germans and were subsequently killed. As the war progressed, the casualty ratio between the Axis & USSR became progressively more balanced. I also think (though not sure) that Red Army casualty figures from 1943 onward are exaggerated by western historians who base much of their conclusions on Nazi sources and memoirs. Moreover, the anti-Russian bias is ever-present in the US & Europe.
@@TheDalitis8 Yep, it just pours out of these chauvinistic Americans. They cant tell anyone about casualties. They were only in action against Germany in the last phase of the war and their homeland was 3,000 miles from the nearest enemy.
@@thevillaaston7811 they were bombing and fighting in tge air before D Day not to mention fighting another war in the Pacific campaign while supplying themselves and others.
Oh yes lets give Russia a cookie for being so inept they lost mass casualties. Russia was using massive British and US aid to buiild their tanks and move their troops. All while fighting 1 front.
@@smithnwesson990 Britain was in the war for six years, with the enemy 20 miles away for four of those years. Britain also fought the Japanese, they fought the Germans on their own for a year. Russia fought the overwhelming number of German land forces - in their own homeland, with the Germans behaving more savagely than they did anywhere else.
Rommel was a genius, had Hitler allowed Rommel everything he needed i highly doubt any of the allied landings would have been successful ,the german 88 became such a lethal tank destroyer thanks to the genius of Rommel using his anti aircraft 88s as anti tank weapons in afrika .
@@jingham2387 who said i was speaking directly to you slick ? Not everyone knows the armored combat techniques Erwin Rommel developed that the US military teaches to this day , god forbid somebody actually learn something new & i challenge you to back up your BS claim and show exactly where i poste disinformation or erroronus info , you cant but your panties sure got in a wad as if you were somehow wronged lmfao
Think about it for a second, if he somehow was the first to do it, how did he get his hands on the Armour Piercing ammunition in order to fight tanks anyway.
wrong man for the job...if they had given the job to someone like gotthard henrici ( who had fought defencive battles from moscow to berlin ) it may have gone a bit better for the home side...as for rommel a born looser a victim of prpaganda
