Documentary about the German small arms of the second world war. For example, starting with the Luger and how it almost was the service pistol of the U.S. Army. It also looks at the development of other weapons such as the Mauser Gewehr 98 , the MP38/40 (machine gun ) , the MG34 (machine gun ) and the somewhat lesser known weapons like the Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 .
Nice to this documentary is that they go about the theory behind how they were used in military units , and how they were used effectively . So for example, caused the experience of the first world war is that an infantry unit was built around the machine . An infantry unit consisted of 10 men around a MG34 .
7 Comments / User Reviews
A .45 Luger was produced for testing by the US army but lost to the Browning 1911.
Did anybody else notice that the video is backwards?
Mr. Lombardi is simply another amateur WWII historian who has a psycological fixation with the Germans. Listen to him talk and it is clear he has some strange pro-German fetish. The Germans..the Germans…the Germans. Well I have news for him- the Germans weren’t “All That.” The German’s war machine was hopelessly inefficient and strategically inept.
Building heavy tanks at a rate of only 200 or so per month is just one example. Attempting to develop 50 plus types of aircraft simultaneously was another- more wasted resources. Ans so were the overlapping chains of command and the “four men to the job of one and one man to do the jobs of four” fiascos. The list goes on and on. These are all examples of gross negligence on the part of the Nazis. Any of these things would have been SCANDALOUS in the Allied camp.
The truth is Nazi Germany was crushed quite expeditiously. Leaving the Eastern Front aside, it went something like this: sink all U-boats- get to England- build up forces in England- destroy Luftwaffe- land on continent- invade Germany- WARS OVER! This all happened just as fast as the necesary forces became available to do so. Germans sitting in Italian mountains or Normandy hedgrows using the terrain for defense was not some great wonder strategy- it was obvious.
Simply put, I have grown wary of some who keep perpetuating this myth of German superiority. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it were actually true- BUT IT’S SNOT!
“Leaving the Eastern front aside, …”
You can’t dance over that one, kid. Two fronts are harder to fight than one.
Gotta give credit where credit is due … blasted, bankrupt Germany rose in two decades to “threaten” the world. Not too many peoples could accomplish that.
Really, I’ve grown wary of those who keep belittling Germany. Historically, the most productive nation that ever was — scientifically (OK, before post-WW2 US, that is), and artistically. A truly great people.
not bad, most of what was said is accurate. I really enjoyed listening to most experts.
I agree with “Historian for History” who doubts Dana Lombardys credibility.
One of his comments is as far as I can see, false. He says at the end of Part 2 that the germans had the advantage over France and GB because of the experience during previous operations (Poland, Czechoslovakia..) but this was definately not crucial.
Germany had the advantage because it employed modern tactics which were executed by an excellently organized
military in combination with high-tech weaponry….this combination devastated enemy forces.
Best Regards from Osnabrück, Germany
Great info. I’ve bookmarked this site.
This is a very poor documentary. I’m not sure how the World War Two channel can keep shoveling out this drivel, but I’m sure with quality programming like “Ancient Astronauts”, har har, they can surely pull off how historical they are. A word of advice history channel, leave history to the historians.
I tried some general searches for Dana Lombardy, and I suspect he is lacking in real credibility. However, he seems to love pictures. Perhaps pictures are the extent of his reading capability as he mispronounces German names a number of times. Also, why do they continually show the MG42 when talking about the MG34?