Printable View
Hello all historicians,
Do you think what would have had happened if the opperation Sea Lion came into effect? Would Germany have lost sooner? What would have happened if they succedeed? We know that they couldn't, but its a What if scenario that I would like to explore.
What do you say?
Cheers!
Since Germany had no way of resupplying across the Channel, they would have lost any army resources they managed to land. Take the scenario from there.
Operation Sea Lion never would have worked, it just was not practical. Great Britain still had a strong enough Navy and air force to make Germany pay dearly for ever man they had try to cross the channel. And once they were across the channel (those who were left that is) they would have been annihilated by the Brits on land. Sea lion was never really going to happen, even Hitler eventually got that, but it was a useful way to keep up morale. The British navy has been stopping world powers from attacking the isles for centuries, and almost all naval invasions have ended up being laughingstocks.
Just take the Dieppe and reverse it; and that would be how the scenario would have played out.
Well, this is a complex question.
The German army was much stronger than the British. Without the Channel, German tanks would have reached London rapidly. But there was the Channel.
The Royal Navy was much stronger than the German Reichsmarine, without any doubt. Further more, the transort capacity of the Germans was very limited and it took a long time to gather it. Neither the German battleship or cruisers nor the submarines would have been able to stop the British Navy.
But there was still the Luftwaffe. It succeeded over Poland and France. It had good planes. skilled pilots and prooved tactics. However, it had also suffered from the fights over France and needed new machines and new organisation. Furthermore, it had not the planes to fight a strategic long range war and it did not have the strategy - obviously Hitler never planned to invade England.
And there was not the will of the German command to attack England.
The Royal Air Force was not much weaker than the Germans. The pilots were skilled but not so experieneced. Numbers were slightly lower, but production of fighters higher. Biggest advantage of the Germans was the tactical skills. But the English had a bigger advantage- they did not have to fight before the landing. They could simply withdraw northwards and wait. And that is what they did. They only fought when they wanted to.
The Luftwaffe could not kill the RAF, because it was out of range. However, as long as the fighters of the RAF were still there, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to screen the bridgeheads and the flanks of the Channel. The RAF would have been able to attack the German convoys as well as the Royal Navy. Both would have suffered casualties, but the Germans would hardly be able to get enough supply to the islands. So, in the end, Germany would have lost the invasion troops.
Although the Germans made many mistakes during the Battle of England, they would not benn able to win it if they had done better.
If the invasion army would have gone, this would not have had a drastic impact on the balance of forces. But it would have some drastic effects. The neutral states would have seen that England was not going to loose, and if England would not loose, it would win in the long run.
This would have changed their policy, the policy from the USA as well as from Spain, Porugal and many others. Most important would have been the effect on the USSR. After all I know, Stalin would have raised the pressure on Germany, demanding more land in Central and Southeastern Europe. Romania, Bulgaria, Finland and Western Poland would propably come under Soviet control, Russian prussure on Turkey would have been bigger. With a defeated German army and a weakened Royal Navy, Stalin could have tried to get Turkey under his control.But these are only mindgames. :idea2:
I may be falling prey to pop history, but i thought the switch (at Hitler's command, and in retaliation to a single British raid on Berlin) to bombing cities rather than the first focus of the 'Battle of Britain', which had been destroying the RAF, came with maybe a week before the RAF would have been beaten? That was by the RAF's own estimation too i thought... :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
So, if the the Luftwaffe had been close to effectivley destroying the RAF's capability to defend itself, then presumably we could consider that the Luftwaffe could have destroyed it, had Hitler chosen not to.
With no air cover the Royal Navy would have been under severe pressure itself, and it's defense of the channel much harder alone.
Personaly, I think it would have been possible for an invasion to succeed, but the effort and losses in achieving the objective must have out-weighed the gains in Hitler or the German high command's view. The USSR's vast tracts of territory, resources and population offered a much greater incentive of future and immediate rewards than Britain presumably did.
Whether that was a strategic miscalculation of threats or not remains to be seen, Pearl Harbour had yet to "happen" and hence the US' engagement in the war was not, by any means, yet decided. If Germany had invaded Britain and maintained even a partial occupation (with supply) before Pearl Harbour, by the time the US joined things would have been very different.
D-day would have been pushed back for sure (assuming Britain and the US beat back the Germans from the UK), god knows what would have happened in the Maghreb and we might even have seen nukes deployed on Germany...
:dizzy2:
One thing not to forget is that the Royal Navy did fight in areas where they did not have air superiority - principally the Med. They took severe losses but were able to dominate the sea despite the forces ranged against them. Rommel constantly suffered from a shortage of supplies due to the lack of control of the sea - and this was about defending Egypt and Malta, not mainland Britain.
The old addage is the "Germans a week away from winning the Battle of Britain, but Hitler made them change strategy" is often mentioned in these discussions.All the attacks on the airfields did was cause disruption in defence - in the end they could have pulled back which would have diluted the ability to defend, but not stop it. A reverse position, not often discussed was the decision to send 12 squadrons to France in 1939 - a force not large enough to secure air superiority, but large enough to suffer significant losses which were missed in the Battle of Britain. Those 12 squadrons - arguebly the best trained - found themselves in a difficult situation, suffered severe losses and made no real impact on the Battle of France.
Pulled-back to where? Defence of what? I thought the focus of the first attacks was the RAF itself, not the population centres or even industrial sites yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
Wasn't the expeditionary force the closest thing GB had to a professional army at the time too (not-withstanding the forces in Egypt)?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kurt
If Britain hadn't intervened at all in France or elsewhere on the continent at the start of the war, i suspect the diplomatic make up of the rest of the conflict would have been much changed. It may be another popular myth I've swallowed but wouldn't Hitler rather have avoided war with GB? I thought he considered it only right that as GB and France had overseas empires, Germany should have the same, albeit more locally, "out back" or so to speak. :clown:
...Not to mention that racist guff about common aerian ancestory (Saxons, Friesiens, Angles et al.)
Politicaly it would have been difficult not to go to France, and optimism was high with the BEF etc. No one predicted the stunning sucess of the German attacks. However the RAF was not fully commited to France - I think I am right in saying that no Spitfires went to France - but we did loose a lot of planes and pilots. It is the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better not to go - but isn't that the same as saying the Germans should have continued attacking the airfields? I suppose my point is both options have merit and can be chewed over - but neither happened and history went - possibly- on a different course.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Fighter Command were losing trained pilots, but the training they had was outdated, and the experience the survivors were gaining more than outweighed the loss of pilots, who in any case were adequately topped up with new recruits (who had better training than the first batch). What was close to breaking point was the fitness of 11 Group, who were severely fatigued by battle stress. Any more of the same, and the backup plan would be used. That the Luftwaffe was similarly close to breaking point made this moot, but the plan was to withdraw 11 Group to the midlands, to rest and refit. There was an adequate supply of new fighters, so equipment wasn't an issue, and there was an adequate supply of new pilots, so numbers wasn't an issue. All 11 Group needed was a respite from action (which they would get in the midlands, since it was out of range of German fighters), and they would be able to return in strength when the invasion came. With the rate of attrition the BoB saw, if Sealion was actually launched, Britain would probaby have significant air superiority as well as naval supremacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
As it turned out, as said above, 11 Group wore down the Luftwaffe to breaking point, which was reached when Bader's Big Wings appeared. While they didn't do much more damage than the standard piecemeal method of engagement, they showed the Germans that the British had fresh reserves which they didn't have, and persuaded them the current battle couldn't be won.
If the Germans did invade, Churchill was going to gas them on the beaches.
If the Germans made it inland, the English had a public campaing planned with posters to be put up saying, "You can always take one with you."
which Is why I will always love the British! :laugh4::laugh4:
hmm, "we will gas the on the beaches" doesn't sound as valiant as "we will fight them on the beaches"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Provided the German army was successful in landing in England, that was probably the dumbest thing Churchill could order. The consequence would probably be retaliating using gas weapons through the whole of England, most certainly against a lot of civilian targets. While France fell quickly and relatively bloodlessly, Hitler would gas his way to Scotland if any such thing was done against his troops. That would imply millions of civillian casualties. I don't think Churchill had the backbone to attempt such a thing, out of fear of the inevitable result such a measure would ensue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
If Hitler would disembark his army of murderers on the British shores without eliminating the R.A.F., he would be cut to pieces by the Royal Navy and the R.A.F.
Besides, If the Germans would start Seelowe, Stalin would order a full scale attack on Nazi Germany, in which the latter would not stand a chance. The Soviets were technologicaly superior in every type of arms - they had excellent BT and T-38 tanks, they have already begun the production of KV-1 and T-34., they had the Katyusha and magnificent airplanes, and tens of thousends of paratroopers. The Germans, exposed from the east, would be defenseless.
With all respect [a phrase which always announces an intellectual uppercut], I think you've got your dates and details a bit mixed up Yarema... The USSR certainly outclassed the 3rd Reich at the end of the war (having borne the brunt of its military might), but not in 1940.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarema
Even though production of the first T34s started in 1940, the red army was still overwhelmingly using early-1930s equipment and had lost most of it's high command through the purges of the 30s.
The fact that it wasn't as effective a fighting force is most easily demonstrated by what happened when operation Barbarossa unleashed the Wehrmacht on the USSR...
...and I think I've been pretty kind there.:egypt:
Germany did not have the sealift to perform more than a raid, and had no ability to re-supply across a beach. Translation = epic fail.
Moreover, even if they had had the sealift, they would also have had to radically increase the size of their naval forces at all levels. No European power had the economic strength to build such a fleet, and certainly not Germany. Remember, this is the English Channel and THE homeland. The Home fleet's sole purpose was to defend that, even at the cost of all units and personnel. No naval force existed that could have successfully screened such an invasion force against an all-out effort by the RN prior to the advent of the 1944 US Pacific Fleet.
The Soviets probably WOULD have attacked had Germany committed to an invasion of Britain, but it would have been a limited assault for purposes of acquiring Rumania and some of the other Balkan territories. It has been theorized that part of the "too far forward" deployment that the Germans exploited during Barbarossa was because Stalin was hoping for an opportunity to do just that.
The Germans would certainly have lost anything they managed to land in England, lost anything they committed to compete for control of the seas, and given the increasing strength of Fighter Command and the rest 11 Group would have had, lost a large proportion of what they committed to compete for control of the air. What's harder to predict is how this would affect Germany. In the event, the absence of Sealion meant German confidence in their military supremacy was undented, which led to the invasion of the USSR, which ultimately led to their defeat. Would the comprehensive defeat of Sealion have led to better or worse ultimate results for Germany?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Command Magazine had a very good article in the mid-90's on the feasability of Sea-Lion.
Their conclusion was that Germany would have had to wreck its internal economy while sending the invading force across the channel in river barges.
Worse yet was the estimantation that the initial landing would have had to gone 3-7 days without re-supply or reinforcment.
Not to mention that the best idea to protect the initial assault and follow on landings was to create a corridor across the channel using destroyers.
In reality Sea-Lion has always been a pipe dream but a great what if.
Eh, I thought before the invasion in Normandy the british and americans built all those beach landing craft, why couldn't germany have simply built some beach landing craft as well? It's not like they looked like very sophisticated or complicated boats. :inquisitive:
I can see how it would have taken Germany longer than it took Britain and the US though.
LST's and LSI's were in fact very sophisticated craft at the time.As were the smaller crafts such as alligators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Also an amphibious invasion is more then just putting troops ashore.There is a whole logistical element behind it.
It took the US 3 years to learn how to conduct amphibious warfare semi-effectallialy.
And that was even factoring in the work done by the USMC prior to the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by John the Mad
LSTs and LSIs etc. were not as sophisticated as subs or carriers, of course, but drop ramps and all the other tech that makes things work did take some development. Moreover, they took a fair bit of effort to build. The USA never achieved the ideal numbers it sought throughout the war.
From Alison Brooks' extremely entertaining debunk of Sealion, but no longer online unfortunately. Fortunately, I've saved a copy to my local drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Operation Sealion - Improvisations
Given the shortage of transports, it was inevitable that the
Germans would look to improvisations. These proved to be
decidedly imperfect.
The Engineer Battalion 47 of VII Army Corps was designated as
having responsibility for the "construction of seaworthy ferries
out of auxiliary equipment, local supply and bridging
equipment". What was unusual in this was that this task,
requiring a good knowledge of matters maritime, was tasked to
this particular battalion, which had its home base in Bavaria.
The engineers were nothing if not enthusiastic. They built rafts
from pontoons, and were undismayed when half of these rafts sank
while in harbour. Attempts to provide these rafts with power
failed, because they broke up under the strain. Nonetheless, the
Wehrmacht announced that these rafts would be towed behind the
barges being towed by the tugs, and that the horses would thus
be transported across the Channel on these rafts, saving the
difficulties of loading the horses into the barges. One wonders
what the horses would have made of this concept.
The engineers turned their attention to pontoons used for
crossing rivers. Even the most optimistic observer had to regard
this as a failure. The open pontoons filled with water and sank.
The iron beams holding the pontoons together snapped in waves,
and the exercise was discontinued.
If Germany had conquered Great Britain, the Germans would have effectively won all they wanted out of the Second World War.
First and foremost, the loss of Britain meant the elimination of the United States as a threat because to launch an invasion three-thousand miles over the Atlantic that would be big enough to matter was simply not practical. Besides, America really had no beef with Hitler as long as he respected American commercial interests,
The British Empiresimply could not afford to carry on the war without Great Britain as a staging ground and political focal point. That is assuming that the Empire even remained loyal with the head decapitated. Many crucial parts of the Empire, like Egypt and India, probable would have broken away if Great Britain was forced to do a Free French routine and pretend to have a functioning government outside of the home nation. The ANZACs probably would have reamined friends but what good could 50,000,000 people separated by thousands of miles of ocean to do the combined forces of Western Europe under Nazi control? U-Boats alone would render communications beyond reason.
Finally, partisans only fight when they feel that there is hope. The French resistance fought on because it knew that it was only a matter of time before liberators crossed the channel. Without the certain knowledge of a liberation, partisans become less and less effective over time.
Last, a Germany free to use the resources of Europe as it wished, without a Royal Navy to blockade it, could easily overwhelm the Soviet Union. Hell, The Germans would not need to conquer the Caucausus oil fields because they would not have 750,000 British and Commonwealth troops backed by the largest navy in the world between them and Mesopotamia or the Dutch East Indies. Considering how successful the Germans were using the limited resources of Europe available to them in reality, it is not a stretch to imagine how much they could have done without the British stop sign at every corner of the continent.
Germany was ultimately defeated because the British divided German efforts enough to prevent it from overwhelming the Soviet Union. The Royal Navy effectively blockaded Germany from all sides apart from the Eastern Front. Great Britain allowed the bombers to slowly bleed the German warmachine to death while the full strength of the United States slowly massed for Overlord. Without the British Isles, victory was impossible.
Firstly, If i may be so bold, i think that's all a bit Anglo centric. There are some fair stategic points in there but you may be overstating Britain's role a little there.
As for this, i have serious reservations about its accuracy. I suspect one only really knows about partisans who were ultimately successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by British Mutt + Viking
Also, I am intrigued to know how one acquires the "certain knowledge of a liberation".
People fight for many reasons. Some, oddly, fight to die -and die free. (Especially if you are in Team America anyway)
“relatively bloodlessly” between 90,000 and 110,000 KIA is not bloodlessly, in 1 month and half.
Now, I don’t think Hitler had the means to cross the Channel. And even if, let's go:
Infantry and tank on land: Petrol and Ammo? Have to cross.
Air support? On the other side of the Channel and thus deny the Blitzkrieg effect.
How many soldiers would have cross and when? Because too late and you have you entire army cut by the bad weather from air support and logistic. Remember what happened in one of the artificial harbour in Normandy… Here we speak of September D-Day was the 21st of September with 11 division (2 Airborne Divisions), or October weather…
As mentioned, the RAF had just to withdraw a little bit to be out of range from the Luftwaffe. However the Germans units would have been in the constant attack of the bombers.
True is after Dunkirk the British had lost all heavy equipment and tanks but the English had 4 fully equipped divisions and 8 in a reasonable shape…
When Hitler abandoned Sea Lion, the RAF had destroyed the 214 on the1,918 Landing Crafts gathered and 21 of the 170 transports.
Then the battle of Hannut and Gambloux (against the French) can give a idea what could happened to the Germans on the English soil:
“The losses are heavy on both sides. The French lost 105 tanks (75 Hotchkiss H35/H39 and 30 Somua S35 tanks) and the Germans about 164 tanks, mainly due to the action of the Somua S35 tanks (despite being often manned by crews lacking experience) but also several because of the Hotchkiss tanks or because of the infantry strong points including AT guns and AT mines. Concerning the French tank losses a good part was probably destroyed by the Luftwaffe and not at all by German tanks.”
“The 2 Panzerdivision supported by 2 infantry divisions were again blocked in Gembloux, by 2 French infantry divisions this time. On the overall strategic level of course the allies failed in May 1940 but Hannut and Gembloux are French undisputable tactical successes over the German army. Despite a numeric superiority and heavy aerial support, the advantage of the radio sets in their faster tanks etc. the Germans failed in face of the French cavalry corps and the 1st army which were devoid of aerial support.” In Axis History Factbook article by David Lehmann
So, the Germans Expeditionary Corps would have finf itself in really really deep problems...:laugh4:
It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Germans had made no attempts to invade/ attack britain whatsover, i.e if they had declared a "unilateral ceasefire"
I think it could have had a big impact politically, there probably would have been some internal pressure in the UK to come to terms with the Nazis.
“It makes you wonder what would have happened if the Germans had made no attempts to invade/ attack britain whatsover, i.e if they had declared a "unilateral ceasefire"
UK would have rearmed faster…:beam:
Historically Britain always took the view that a single European power acheiving dominance in mainland Europe was a bad thing and not in Britains interests. Hence the alliance against the French in the late 18th centuary, early 19th centuary and the next centuary when it allied with France against Germany. Also in the mid 20th centuary against Russia.
Once the phoney war was over it was a fight to the end for the British.
I pulled off operation sealion on hearts of iron even with the CORE mod! Can't have been that hard!
....
Ran out of oil near the end so it was touch and go for a while when the remains of the Royal Navy cut off my supply convoys. Managed to use what little oil I captured along to the way to feed my panzer army for the assault on London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
While we're having a look at what-if scenarii, what if the french navy surrendered to Hitler (without being sunk by the allies or destroying itself) ? AFAIK, the French navy was quite decent in 1940. Obviously not as good as the Royal Navy or the Imperial Navy, but still better than anything the Germans could field.
For the love of God, do some people on this forum get their information from the Deutshce Wochensau or Volkicher Beobachter???
The Russians outclassed the Germans in EVERY SINGLE DETAIL since 1941, and well before.
The production of t-34 was already under way since 1930s, and in june 41 the soviets already had several hundreds of then in the occupied baltic republics. i wil not wright about the whole rest of their equipment, because i don't have enough life for that.
So please just name ONE german heavy tank from 1941 (the russians already had their KV).
Please just name ONE german swimming tank from 1941 (the russians already had their t-38).
Name some german paratrooper corps. Not divisions, the whole corps! (the russians had 500000 of them).
i'm not going to wright about the whole rest, i don't have enough life for that...
Anyway, if USSR would attack first Germany would collabse in no longer than 4 months. The had nowhere to retreat to, u know (countrary to the Russians). And they had army of the second strategic group (countrary to the Russians).
Er, yeah, but in what is it relevant with Sea Lion operation?:sweatdrop:
I thought the whole thing about "Russian leadership crippled by purges" leading to being pushed back to Moscow was pretty much fact?
This thread has been won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge_272
Biggest threat to Germany was Russia and they knew it. Stalin's 5 year plans brought Russia kicking and screaming to the 20th Century and with the help of the previous German government who supplied plans/arms/technology with the Russians, in return the Russian's allowing the German military to secretly train there, the Russian's really did have an advantage.
The fact was, Hitler had to attack Russia as soon as possible, because Time favoured the Russians, however, on that note, Hitler was never in an "optiminal" situation where he could invade Russia and by all accounts, probably did attack Russia at an optiminal moment when he took Stalin by surprise, due to the fact it was illogical for him to do so.
Apart from the whole conspiracy talk where Pearl Harbour was set-up as an excuse for the US to join the war, if the Japanese restarted the Russo-Japanese war instead, it could have really applied pressure to the Russians.
Heading more on-topic, Hilter didn't need to invade Britain, all he had to do was cripple Britain to take them out of the war effort. Eventually enough, Britain would have had to been forced to accept a ceasefire, if not a surrender.
The main catalyticism for America joining the world, however, was the Russians fighting Hitler back, because if they didn't join in, Western Europe as we know it would be a completely different place.
Except of course for the facts that Hitler declared war upon the USA on 11 December 1941 or 4 days after Pearl Harbor; and that the USSR received supplies from the USA even before (per the Lend Lease Act, October 1941) the USA was actually at war with Germany (11 December 1941).
EDIT: The then political elite in the USA was simply looking for any excuse to intervene and assert influence; even as the electorate was less enthusiastic about such intervention in Europe.
I may be wrong but wasnt Hitler targetting american ships long before he declared war on them. Also, wasnt America trading with both axis and Allied powers during 39-41?
Yeah, the Americans were hiding war supplies, etc on passager ships to Britain.
The declaring war on America was a pretty stupid move though, they should have fortified their position first.
Beskar, I agree with you totally.
As for Sealion, I can hardly imagine any circumstances in which it could be possible. Even if the Germans would defeat the RAF (which they didn't), their Russian allies would stab them in the back, and that strike would be lethal for Germany.
"their Russian allies would stab them in the back": This always come back and there is no ONE evidence, or even a smell of a flavour of a suspision of proof.:dizzy2:
If USSR was ready to attack Nazi Germany, why not in 1940, May? They were in good position: Poland borders, not so far from Germany itself... It was just a ride as all German Pz Div were engaged against teh French and the British... So in September 1940, tell me what was the difference?:idea2:
"they should have fortified their position first."
They did later, and for what benefit.
In less than 24 hours, the US and the Brits crushed the Rommel defenses, the Navy blowed up all possibilty for the Panzer Div to intervene (so Rommel Plan was not viable as Runstedt predicted it) and the US and UK Air Forces made any movements impossible.
If hitler would land his men on the british beaches in 1940, Russia would attack him in 1940. He would not be completely ready, but he would have to attack before Hitler would strengthen his posistion in occupied europe. Stalin was far more intelligent than any other politician of ww2 (with the exeption of Churchill maybe) and he knew that.
But since Germany was unable to defeat Britain, he decided he could wait. Hitler was in a hopeless position anyway. From Stalin's point of view it seemed that Germany would lose the war sooner or later: the had to fight Britain, which also meant war with America (who was already supplying UK with everything thay had).
So why not wait a little longer, and let them all wear themselves down?
i don't know where did you get this nonsense from, but i assure you that libraries and book stores are full of books which will all tell you that prior to 22 June 1941 Stalin grouped an army of about 3 million men and more than 4000 tanks literally ON border with Germany. Right behind the army he placed great amount of gasoline, food, uniforms, etc. Later, it would all be used by the germans, who encircled the red army amassed on the border and made use of their fuel, armoured cars, or sometimes even tanks. I won't give you the books, because practically EVERY BOOK about the eastern front will tell you that within the first few days of the attack the Germans took hundreds of thousands of prisoners from the armies on the border, and captured great amounts of fuel, cars, etc. Get ANY BOOK about eastern front 1941, and you will find it in ANY BOOK.Quote:
their Russian allies would stab them in the back": This always come back and there is no ONE evidence, or even a smell of a flavour of a suspicion of proof.
You seem to be interested in the history of warfare (wow, you're on a total war forum:beam:), so you must know what does one do when preparing to an attack.
oh and btw. (it's june 1941):
heavy tanks: Germany - NONE; USSR - KV 1
medium tanks: Gemany- PzIII, PzIV; USSR- T-34, BT-7
light tanks: Germany- PzII, PzI; USSR- T-28
light swimming tanks: Germany- NONE; USSR- T-40 (or 38, don't remember)
Parartroopers: Germany: about 15000; USSR: About 400 000
I could enumerate until dawn, but i'll ;et you check the books...
Hitler had 3600 tanks, Stalin had 22000 tanks, among them 2000 excellent t-34 and kv-1.
Paratroopers are an OFFENSIVE weapon, right?
you call that being unprepared or sth?
Russians had a time advantage. Germany was embroiled in war. Stalin was building up his own armies and strength, it was a matter of time before conflict arose, however, even Stalin was caught off-guard with Hitler's invasion and even dismissed it at first as misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarema
Germany definitely got Russia into a pinch, however, Blitzkreig wasn't that effective in Russia, due to it being an almost endless mass of land, compared to the likes of France.
“Russia would attack him in 1940”: Proof? Evidences? Plan? None. There is nowhere you can find a document allowing you to say that.
Yeah, I know, secret plan and the Barbarosa Trap, and all this non-sense, proved by nothing real:
“Soviet dictator, Stalin's, Red Army had been planning to invade Western Europe for about two years in 1941. The truth has been hidden from the world for nearly a half century.
In the 1990s, the truth began to surface as researchers in the Historical Archive and Military Memorial Center of the Red Army General Staff revealed a sensational document. The document is entitled: "Reflections of a Plan For The Strategic Deployment of the Armed Forces of The Soviet Union In The Event of War With Germany and Her Allies." The plan, obviously written in response to a directive from the dictator Stalin, was dated March 3 1941. The document was signed by
the top echelon of the Red Army General Staff, including: M.G. Vasilievsky, N. Vatutin, G. Zhukov and S. Timoshenko. It was all there, over fifteen pages of detailed maps and plans for the simultaneous invasion of Germany, Hungary and Rumania in 1941.”
That is it. This is THE proof….:laugh4::laugh4:
Er, in 1938, the French Army was making plan to invade USSR by landing in Crimea… That is what the military called a simulation, a strategic war-game, Red against Blue.:beam:
For what we know between 1928 and 1941, the STAVKA had seven major operational war plans drafted, completed with fifteen reviews and revisions. So USSR planned 7 times to attack Europe. Well, of course, they were attacked as well, at least on paper…:smash:
Authors of this kind of books just imagine and try without any facts (real one, not the one they are making up: “There are reports of entire Air Force regiments which reported that they suffered negligible or no losses in the air or on the ground at the first day, and then simply abandoned their air bases and escaped by trucks and on foot. In 1941 Russia lost millions of soldiers. Only 32% of the reported losses were the dead and wounded”,),
They are just following in this the 1941 German Propaganda (Pre-emptive Strike).
It was a massive cover-up… Right. The Russian didn’t even succeeded to cover-up Kathyn, but THIS, they did it… Yeah…:laugh4:
What they provide is opinions not answers: “lot has been written on the tragedy of 1941. In the last few years a large amount of new publications appeared on the subject, but still they all explain the events of the beginning of the war differently. All of them keep asking the same question - why Red Army had suffered such a heavy defeat having had such a huge quantitative superiority in military equipment. Each publication provides an answer of its own. Some wrote that the USSR had planned to attack Germany and the Red Army concentration had an offensive nature and had not been able to react properly at being attacked unexpectedly, some wrote that the Army hadn't had enough new equipment, some stated that the data on Red Army equipment are incorrect” in Front lines edition.
Just for information: As late as June 1941, Colonel-General Halder described Soviet deployment as `rein defensiv', dismissing the idea of any major Red Army offensive as `nonsense'. He was even sceptical of Hitler's concern about a Soviet thrust towards the Romanian oil fields.
“i don't know where did you get this nonsense from, but i assure you that libraries and book stores are full of books which will all tell you that prior to 22 June 1941 Stalin grouped an army of about 3 million men and more than 4000 tanks literally ON border with Germany”
I don’t know where THEY find this, but it is simply not true.
“On the basis of the Russian Civil War (1918-20), the Red Army began to bill itself as ''an army of a new type'', inherently superior to all others. However, in late 1920, the Poles trounce it soundly. Later, Soviet intervention in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) reveals widespread obsolescence in armament and equipment. The Nazi--Soviet Pact of August 1939 gives Germany and the USSR a free hand to act against Poland. However, slack performance by the Red Army in the unopposed occupation of eastern Poland and the bungled war with Finland in the winter of 1939-40 necessitate sweeping military reforms.” Extract of The Red Army, 1918-1941 -From Vanguard of World Revolution to US Ally
That is not exactly the description of a Army ready for attacking a other army which defeated in no time two of very powerful enemies, is it?
“Get ANY BOOK about eastern front 1941, and you will find it in ANY BOOK.” So when the Germans captured the entire heavy equipment of the British in Dunkirk (and the French) it was because UK and France secretly wanted to invade Germany and Germans attack was pre-emptive…. Or more simply because retreating army are leaving equipment behind them?:laugh4:
If you want to read books, read about the Blitzkrieg and how it worked. The aim was not to destroy the enemy but to prevent him to fight. Guderian said something like this: My tanks are not there to fight enemy tanks but to cut them from their supplies so they can’t fight. See, no need of smoky explanations. Just read what the Germans said about it.
About Red Army equipment I will suggest to read REAL history books and you will see that if the Red Army figures were impressive, the preparation and the ready for action material was far less impressive…
However, I want to thanks you for this.
I had to read all this non-sense from a so call ”Suvorov” and it makes me laugh. It was good after a hard day at work…
First off, You mentioned the "barbarossa trap", not me. i also find it to be nonsense
1. Do not compare french war games to real sovietpreparations. Why?
War games consist of playing, and drinking coffea in front of the table, real preparations consist of forming armies and buliding tanks (how many times do i have to repeat that USSR had at least 22000 excelent bt-7, t-28, t-38, t-40, t-34, kv-1? not to mention paratroopers and the whole rest.)
2. Do not compare Dunkirk (that was a retreat after a campaign in france and the low countries ) to the defeat of june 1941 (that happened right on the border). Geography will help you notice the difference.
3. The term STAVKA did not appear until late 1941, and even than and afterwards it was not a formal term. And once again, do not compare war games to real preaparations. War games do not consist of buliding more than 22000 tanks.
4. "The red amry had a lot of equipment of poor quality"- that might sound well when Goebels is talking, but not in a 21 century discussion.
I already made a small comparison of russian and german tanks FROM JUNE 1941, but in case sb didn't notice i will copy/ paste:
oh and btw. (it's june 1941):
heavy tanks: Germany - NONE; USSR - KV 1
medium tanks: Gemany- PzIII, PzIV; USSR- T-34, BT-7
light tanks: Germany- PzII, PzI; USSR- T-28
light swimming tanks: Germany- NONE; USSR- T-40 (or 38, don't remember)
Soviet light tanks outclassed german light tanks, Soviet medium tanks outclassed german medium tanks, as for heavy tanks - the soviets had kv-1, germany had none. compare the number and quality of the weapons of both sides FROM JUNE 41 and you'll find the russians were more technologically advanced in almost everything. Unless of course you will compare german medium tanks to russian light tanks, like Goebbels did in Deutsche Wohensau.
5. The preparations can NEVER be finished definitely, the same applied to german Barbarossa plan.
6. Perhaps you will give me some other reason why Stalin amassed 3mln soldiers right on the border, and why did he sent all his planes to airports nera the border, etc.
nice writing with you anyway, too bad we can't drink a beer (or 6). that's the second thing a
i like after history
oh one more thing - i read a lot of ww2 books, not just suvorov/solonin/pleshakov stuff.
and no offense - i find ALL books of western european and american authors ABOUT RUSSIA to be rather worthless ( with the noble exception of Richard Pipes, but he is a Polish Jew:beam:). Western european authors do not know anything about Russia, their general idea goes like that:
"Russia is big, and Russia is poor (and we do not want to know that their poverty is their own fault, don't tell us, we don't wanna know!). They are frustrated because of their poverty. So they start conflicts with every neighbour, but we don not care, since we think that they have some stupid "special rights" which allow them to do everything and which do not apply to other nations."
As for myself, I consider myself a fan of Red Army's effort on the eastern front, even though it brought my country 45 years of slavery and about 2mln dead at the hands of NKVD.
“Perhaps you will give me some other reason why Stalin amassed 3mln soldiers right on the border, and why did he sent all his planes to airports near the border, etc.”
For the same reason than the French put them on the German Borders, for the same reason than the Belgium put theirs on the German and French Borders… :beam:
You defend you countries as soon you can. You seems obsess by the 3 millions soldiers. In 1942-43, USA had 20 millions men at arms…
The French had 3 500 tnks to oppose to the Germans. But a bad use of this tanks made all this material useless and then were use by the Germans…
If you study where the Russian lost most of their troops, it was NOT at the borders. Minsk, Smolensk, Karkov are not in Poland…
Most of the Russian planes were obsolete (Rata I 16, Polikarpov etc) and were destroy on the ground, most of the times during the first days of Barbarosa. This will hugely contribute to the high number of victories of German Pilots as Eric Hartmann.
Yes the Germans had no heavy tank equivalent to the KV but the KV 1 been a failure as the French Bis or T 34, but they crews were not trained and they were lacking of radio equipment, same failure than the French Somua S 35 which was better than the PZ III but couldn’t really manoeuvre.
“Do not compare Dunkirk (that was a retreat after a campaign in france and the low countries ) to the defeat of june 1941”
I compared them as you mentioned the seizure of equipment.
June 1941 was indeed a set back for the Red Army. However it was no defeat. It was a succession of successes for the Germans and Allies but they never succeeded in defeating the Red Army as a all. The Russian did retreat. Sometimes too late, but they did. So the bulk of the Red Army was still there and was able in December 1941 to defeat the German and even to push them back in 1942.
“The red amry had a lot of equipment of poor quality"- that might sound well when Goebels is talking, but not in a 21 century discussion.”
They had obsolete Air Forces, most of the front lines tanks were inefficient (as shown in Finland) their soldiers were poorly trained and theirs officers absolutely under trained thanks to Stalin and his Purges… And it is a discussion of the 21st Century. The few KV1 and T 34 made no difference in the outcome of the first months…
Come on the BT’s were light tanks, the BT 7 being equiped with the 45 mm barrel…
Sorry have to go
To be continued
1. Your answer is irrelevant - the french got their soldiers on a FORTIFIED LINE - no tanks, just infantry and bunkers, with planes far behind the border line.
The USSR had way more soldiers than the 3mln i mentioned, but the point is that those unfotunate 3mln who got surrounded by the first german attack (only 1 out of 10 would survive the captivity) were aan ASSAULT FORCE - with tanks and airplanes as close to the border as possible.
- I beg to differ, it was the same assault army. They Started to retreat soon after the attack started and got surrounded a bit farther (Minsk)... Tanks drive quickly through the steppes, u know. As for Kharkov, the soviets did sustain large casualties there, but in may 1942, not in 1941!Quote:
f you study where the Russian lost most of their troops, it was NOT at the borders. Minsk, Smolensk, Karkov are not in Poland…
T-34 a failure?!?!? The BEST tank in ww2 a failure?Quote:
Yes the Germans had no heavy tank equivalent to the KV but the KV 1 been a failure as the French Bis or T 34, but they crews were not trained and they were lacking of radio equipment, same failure than the French Somua S 35 which was better than the PZ III but couldn’t really manoeuvre.
KV a failure? The world's first heavy tank a failure? Nobody else had heavy tanks until late 1942 (Pzkpfw VI Tiger)!!! So KV was a failure compared to what?
As for the radio stuff and lack of training, I agree fully, but this was the problem of Red Army until the end of the war, the Red Army leaders didn't see it as a problem and were willing to attack anyway.
"If I knew that Russians have such tanks, I would have not attacked" - A. Hitler about KV and T-34. Failure? Compared to what? Remember we're still in 1941, do not compare KV to Pzkpfw VI Tiger.
- so the comparison was irrelevant, you agree?Quote:
I compared them as you mentioned the seizure of equipment.
- i never wrote anything that would challenge that!Quote:
June 1941 was indeed a set back for the Red Army. However it was no defeat. It was a succession of successes for the Germans and Allies but they never succeeded in defeating the Red Army as a all. The Russian did retreat. Sometimes too late, but they did.
- Yees, the Red Army won a great victory at the gates of Moscow, but it wasn't the bulk of the red army, but the second strategic group, which was being formed in Siberia. The bulk of the red army was destroyed until late september 41.Quote:
So the bulk of the Red Army was still there and was able in December 1941 to defeat the German and even to push them back in 1942.
WHAT? Obstolete Air forces? Compared to what? The german planes were on the same level, please compare the technical stats.Quote:
They had obsolete Air Forces, most of the front lines tanks were inefficient (as shown in Finland) their soldiers were poorly trained and theirs officers absolutely under trained thanks to Stalin and his Purges… And it is a discussion of the 21st Century. The few KV1 and T 34 made no difference in the outcome of the first months…
Come on the BT’s were light tanks, the BT 7 being equiped with the 45 mm barrel…
BT-7, Bystrohodnyi tank 7, a construction of Walter Christie, a light tank? In that case Pz III was also a light tank, since it's cannon and it's engine was inferior to the that of BT-7 (as for 1941, remember).. They were equal only in armour, i think. Remember we're talking about 1941, so do not compare BT-7 from 1941 to PzIIIL or PzIIIJ from 1942, but to PzIIIF from 1941.
in 1941 Stalin had more than a 1000 excellent T-34 and KV-1, about 8000 (I think) moderately good BT-7, and more than 12000 light tanks (t-28, t-40, t-38, including swimming tanks). Hitler had 3500 tanks ( no heavy tanks at all), some of those 3500 were obstolete and useless PzI and PzII. The Wermacht made reports that those "tanks" cannot be used IN ANY WAY (not to mention in battle) as early as autumn 1941, whereas Russian T-28, t-38 and t-40 were used even after the war, by the army of Finnland for example.
The Finnish captured some of those tanks during the winter war and they liked them so much that they kept them.
Your answer is irrelevant - the french got their soldiers on a FORTIFIED LINE - no tanks, just infantry and bunkers, with planes far behind the border line.”
Absolutely not. The main units were near the Belgium borders with all the best equipped and trained mechanised units to confront the attack from the Germans as the French and the British were expecting the major offensive through Belgium. Which was initially the OKW plan (Yellow Plan), plan they were obliged to change following a plane accident that provided it to the French…
The Maginot line was suppose to secure the flanks and to protected the main territory from invasion and was at the borders… As the Russian were at the demarcation line in Poland…
“The USSR had way more soldiers than the 3mln I mentioned, but the point is that those unfotunate 3mln who got surrounded by the first german attack (only 1 out of 10 would survive the captivity) were an ASSAULT FORCE - with tanks and airplanes as close to the border as possible” No. There is no evidence of this.
To have an army with tanks and planes doesn’t in any way make this Army an assault force. That makes the army a mobile Army ready to counter manoeuvre an incoming enemy. As in the prepared plan mentioned earlier…
The Anglo-French had more tanks, more planes and more soldiers than the Germans but they were neither the aggressors nor an Assault Force…
“bit farther”: A bit? Brest Litovsk, then Minsk then Smolensk, you call that a bit. On my map, it is roughly 1,000 km…
Distance that, saying passing by, revokes your claim about a destruction at the borders…
Now, where are the Russian Mechanised Army Corps?
1 in Leningrad. (Military Region of)
2 in the Western Military Region
2 in Kiev
1 in Odessa
1 in Transbaikal
1 in Moscow
1 in the Caucasus
1 in Central Asia
and at the beginning of 1941 a 3rd is added in Kiev under Rokosovski.
So not at the borders...
However, these units are far to be at full capacity.
To face the 19 Panzer-Divisionen the Russian deployed 15 000 tanks (967 T34, 508 KV1-2).
On the 13,500 “old” tanks 3 650 are really able to fight. And they are not in units but spread within all the Soviet units… It is still 5,000 against 3,500 Germans, which were not all modern and well equipped…
“T-34 a failure?!?!? The BEST tank in ww2 a failure?
KV a failure? The world's first heavy tank a failure?”
Er, read before. The KV1 was a failure, I never spoke about the T34 as a failure.
And KV 1, yes a failure. Oh yeah, nice armour but too heavy, turret too slow to move, not visibility…
The KV 1 was not the first heavy tank in the world. The Soviet T 35 and the Char B 1 were before it. To be heavy is not enough if your weight trapped you in the mud…
“Nobody else had heavy tanks until late 1942 (Pzkpfw VI Tiger)!!! So KV was a failure compared to what?” You’ve got your answer above…
“so the comparison was irrelevant, you agree?” Fully relevant as you mentioned the seizure of material as proof that Stalin was ready to launch an offensive…:beam:
“WHAT? Obstolete Air forces?” You want it, you’ve got it:
Western Military District: 3 Mixed Air Division, 2 Bombers Divisions, 1 Fighter Division
I-153 and MIG 3 (I-153 are biplanes…), I 16, (Rata during the Spanish Civil War) and Assault Planes Il2 (at training) and YAK 1 (for training)
Bombers: AR 2 and SB.
Kiev: I 16. I 153, MIG 3 (only few!!!) etc
Ok, too long to copy (and translate, I surrender…) But yes, the Soviet Air Forces was equipped with obsolete planes…:sweatdrop:
“BT-7, Bystrohodnyi tank 7, a construction of Walter Christie, a light tank?” Yes, definitively yes. The name gives you a clue. Bistro, fast…
“Tanks drive quickly through the steppes, u know” I do know as I went there with a 4x4 and it took me quite around two weeks to reach Kursk.
I didn’t had to fight and repair. Maintenance is Tanks Units devil…
As a fomer crew member of a Tank I speak from experience...
True, the units of the Allies were in Belgium, but the position they took wasnot a position to attack - tanks were dispersed instead of forming large groups, the infantry was digging in and making trenches to prepare for defense (they were digging in slowly and in a rather clumsy way, but still).Quote:
Absolutely not. The main units were near the Belgium borders with all the best equipped and trained mechanised units to confront the attack from the Germans as the French and the British were expecting the major offensive through Belgium. Which was initially the OKW plan (Yellow Plan), plan they were obliged to change following a plane accident that provided it to the French…
The sheer fact that the Anglo-French had more tanks or planes does not prove much - they had no clue on how to use them (especially the tanks). The Germans, on the countrary, created large assault groups aof Tanks, but you already know that. And when i wrote about a FORTIFIED LINE i meant the maginot line, after all that;s what you mentioned before.
No evidence? The red army was literally hugging the border, the positions of teh red army in the morning of 22 june 1941 are not top secret, please check this out yourself.Quote:
No. There is no evidence of this.
To have an army with tanks and planes doesn’t in any way make this Army an assault force. That makes the army a mobile Army ready to counter manoeuvre an incoming enemy. As in the prepared plan mentioned earlier…
"manoeuvre an incoming enemy"? if your men "hug" the border manoevering gets chaotic and difficult right after the attack, which was in fact proved by what happened right after 22 june 1941...
If ouy place your soldiers right on the border, it means you;re preparing to attack, i'm not gonna explain why, you should know yourself.
First off, people from western europe have trouoble in understanding that not the whole world looks like thier place. In 1581/82 the Poles besieged Pskov, and one of the German infantrymen generals fighting for the Poles complained about the fact that the poles look after cavalry more than the infantry, to which general Krzysztof "thunderbolt" Radziwill replied: "this is not northern Italy, nor the Netherlands. Distances are grater and we have to move quickly, so stop your bi_chin."Quote:
bit farther?
The same applies to WW2. Tanks manoever quickly in sparsely populated areas, epecially on the steppes (and i didn't say a word about Smolensk!).
So here are the soviet losses on the borders:
1. Soviet troops encircled/destroyed on the obrder:
-Bialystok/Misnk: about 400000 men, 2500 tanks, 1500 aricraft
2. Baltic defensive battle: about 90000 men, more than 1000 tanks, more than 1000 aircraft
3. Battles of Brody and Uman: more than 200000 men, about 600 tanks.
These are just three border battles... and 700 000 men lost!
Now about Kiev (short): the soviets lost about 600000 men, mostly paratroopers. Positioning paratroopers on the border was not a wise thing to do, they were aalmost all in the Ukraine, where the airports were, and from where it was close to Romanian oil fields...
STALIN HAD MOR PARATROOPERS THAN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD ALTOGETHER... Maybe it was some kind of a national hobby? in a countrty where everything is decided by the governement?
gotta go to sleep, i'll finish on monday
Okay, just wanted to say a couple of things.
Only 16-17 million served in the US Armed Forces throughout the entire war, and many of these were not frontline troops.Quote:
In 1942-43, USA had 20 millions men at arms…
Apparently, the evidence usually cited for the Soviet pre-emptive strike theory is:
a. Armored forces deployed in exposed front-line positions
b. Creation of numerous airborne corps since the start of WW2
c. Improvement of roads close to the German-Soviet borders
d. Deployment of fighter squadrons near the border
e. Distribution of military maps that included Western Poland and parts of Germany
I also found this map in a book:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
However, there doesn't seem to be any actual written evidence that Stalin was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany. It's all circumstancial. AFAIK there was nothing like a Soviet Directive 21.
Yeah Azatoth's right, even in the Pacific , they maybe only sent some 5 million and in europe 7 million or something. well, the US army was maybe the best :2thumbsup:at that time, cuz like 1squad(4 men) can destroy like a hole Platoon of Nazi's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Wait, that's a joke, right?Quote:
well, the US army was maybe the best at that time, cuz like 1squad(4 men) can destroy like a hole Platoon of Nazi's.
well, not really. It did happened somewhere during Normandy:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
Yeah. US soldiers were so much pwnzors. They had auto aim, more life and what not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus
Yeah, there badass guys.
:inquisitive:
Beyond parady.
Sure, if the squad was armor and the platoon was light infantry. Otherwise, that seems a bit far-fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus
In combat, there are no rules like "Oh, 10 of my British infantrymen can take down that light tank". It's all circumstance and tactics. Obviously, there were times when 4 men could destroy a platoon, and other times when they would all get killed. I don't even want to begin explaining the deficiencies of the American army, so let's just leave it at this; you need to do some basic research before going on about WWII.
“Apparently, the evidence usually cited for the Soviet pre-emptive strike theory is:
a. Armored forces deployed in exposed front-line positions
b. Creation of numerous airborne corps since the start of WW2
c. Improvement of roads close to the German-Soviet borders
d. Deployment of fighter squadrons near the border
e. Distribution of military maps that included Western Poland and parts of Germany “
Well:
a. Some Armoured forces were deployed in potential front lines (3 on a total of 10 1 on the Japanese Front): Nor really impressive, I should say.
b. The Russian invented the concept of Airborne Assault… So nothing is really surprising about this. Then, the real question is when did the Russian used airborne forces in their offensive…?
c. By the way, the Front Line is Poland in 1941… Did Stalin build roads in Poland?
d. Well, if you want to intercept bombers before their reach your industrial area, it is better to have far advance defence, especially if not are not equipped with radar…
e. To whom? The Russian, even in the 1980, had maps on high level on the hierarchy…
If you just see where the towns mentioned by Yerema are as proof than the Russians were on the borders on a map, his evidences are auto destroyed. Minsk is not a border town, nor Smolensk…:beam:
Yarema is some documents and maps and well, just ignores what the Germans themselves wrote and said.
Summary: Unprepared Red Army, no artillery coordination, lack of officers, no tracks at all for a “offensive” concentration of troops.
You have to remember than the Germans and the Russian developed together their tanks doctrine. This is why the Red Army from the start started counter-offensive which will end very badly for reasons mentioned above: Total lack of coordination between units, mediocrity of system of communication, incompetence of the Commanders. Is it the description of an Army ready to take a major offensive?
Note: A soldier is not ready for defensive or offensive, (or a unit, or an Army), he is ready or not.
The distingo between a Defensive or Offensive army is not relevant. The material is not relevant.
What is relevant is: “AFAIK there was nothing like a Soviet Directive 21”
Some simple observations:
Where are the most major centers of production/industry?
Where lie most major civic centers?
What are (traditionally) the major centers of political significance?
Where does the vast majority of party politicians; as well as dissidents come from?
Where does the CCCP draw most of its supporters from?
What regions are most reliant on food imports and hence are more likely to riot when food supplies fail?
What regions provide the bulk of armed forces as well as the bulk of armory stock?
The dependence of the USSR on its European territories goes so far at the time; that they cannot really rely on their Asian possessions to supply them -- even most major mining centers do no lie east of the Urals. Past the Urals is a country in which industry is still very much in its infancy.
So to sum up: what territories are most highly prioritized when it comes to exerting control over the populace and defending from [foreign] assault? I would not be surprised if you could find me a stat showing 95% of all Russian forces were congregated between Yekaterinburg and Warsaw at the time: such a deployment makes sense out of its own accord and does so even without a grand invasion plan.
The fact that Paratroopers are an offensive weapon is not the same as Paratroopers are an EFFECTIVE weapon. That's called Operation Market Garden.Quote:
Paratroopers are an OFFENSIVE weapon, right?
That's the effect of light infantry going up against armour for an extended period of time. Airborne assaults directly preceding conventional attacks worked wonders. It's called Varsity, Neptune, and Avalanche.
Market Garden failed because of a british Inteligence Captain was killled, then a German Soldier was ordered to check his pockets. Then he found a document named "Operation Market Garden".Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
so the germans knew that the allies were going to take the 3 major Bridges into the Fatherland.2 Bridges were Captured by the 101st and 82nd Airborne. But the 3rd bridge, Arnhem was failed to capture by the brits. Another thing that made the Allies lose was the XXX corps did'nt reach Arnhem in time.
Operation Market Garden
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo6/no4/images/Bennett3.jpg
What fatherland?
Anyways; Market Garden failed for numerous reasons, and the "Germans knew everything!" plot is kind of exaggerated. For starters the Germans seemed to consider it if anything more of a diversion than the ‘real deal’ -- they had themselves quite enough experience with the terrain to tell that it would 99% sure be a folly, and they also knew that the American members of allied high command were less than convinced about the plan and in particular that Eisenhower was very unlikely to give it all his support (and that turned out to be quite right, Eisenhower didn't -- Mr. Montgomery corresponded extensively about his disagreements with Mr. Eisenhower).
The rest is sort of ‘what did you expect’. Of course the airborne divisions did not hold Arnhem long enough: effectively cut-off from supplies and facing both machine guns and tanks...
Of course the reinforcements never made it on time: moving over ancient dikes a convenient 1m above the landscape so they were basically very slow moving sitting ducks for any kind of artillery; or any kind of armed forces really.
you dont know that???:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Fatherland is Germany.
the Germans were not experienced in that area. the Panzer Corps that was sent there were most of the veterans of Normandy. the Paratroopers too (the americans)
Arnhem, Eindhoven, and Nijmegen are in the Netherlands. The map you posted clearly labels it as so.
Montgomery's strategic objective was to cross the Rhine at Arnhem and then use the bridgehead generated to punch into the Ruhr valley, which is most definitely (and at the time economically very important to) Der Vaterland.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
Vertical envelopment is a fine concept, but using mass parachutings to accomplish it was and is a poor choice. Your troops land disorganized and very often far from where they were intended, their equippage is light, and they can barely muddle through to objectives if at all until after hours/days of re-organizing. Most of the paradrops prior to Market were not wholly successful. They did enhance the "confusion" factor, but that's about it.
The troops themselves were superb. Given a few days to get things together and they worked wonders with what little they had.
Agreeing with Seamus's Post;
The Allies also weren't aware of the actual size and strength of the Dutch SS, and Regular Wermacht operating in the area, which was much larger than anticipated, and hadn't expected much in the way of heavy armor, from their intelligence reports.
Instead they dropped "light" expecting similar results as they had during Overlord, what a terrible surprise for the British 1st, not only had they dropped their supplies right into the German's hands, but most of it would have been relatively useless against the Brunt of Army Force B, that they managed to hold out for so long against such overwhelming odds was a testament to their training, skill, and courage.
It's not entirely correct to say the Allies weren't aware, as there was intelligence and aerial reconnaissance that indicated the presence of SS heavy armour. However, it seems the operation's commanders were in denial about the risks, as they waved away the reports and the dangers posed by it. The only officer that tried to make them see the risk was packed of on medical leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Of course, this was just one of several major blunders in the planning of the operation.
the Allies did knew there was heavy resistance only in Arnhem, not in Njigmen, and Eindhoven. so they sent XXX Corps to engage with the heavy Resisstance. But the XXX corps came late and the operation failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens