Good news on future of BOM

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by csThor

Pardon my french, lonewolf, but 'Nuts!' The term "Blitzkrieg" is indeed no german invention but of course Goebbels was quick to utilize it. In a few significant sectors, especially in doctrine and force structure, the Wehrmacht was clearly ahead of its western opponents - be it the french with their defensively minded idea of warfare and tanks which couldn't decide whether to be infantry support or "exploitation" (and in the end they were neither) nor the british with the problems the nasty feuds of the 20s and 30s had left behind and which was mirrored in the ineffective structure of their forces (especially the armored divisions which were no combined arms formations in 1940). The doctrinal environment the term "Blitzkrieg" describes is nothing more than the traditional prusso-german way of war just with the added element of tanks and aircraft - it reenabled the Wehrmacht to prosecute the war as a war of movement on the operational level, just like its great ancestors under the Great Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Preussen, Friedrich II or Moltke the Elder.

If I may offer a book recommendation: Robert M Citino "The German way of War".

Yeah well, nuts to you too m8

Actually, I'm not sure my position is all that different from your own.

I said: "There was nothing revolutionary about German combined arms tactics in 1939-41 and in reality these were just an extension of the tactics developed by the Germans in 1914-18."

[csThor]

The "Nuts" was really more aimed at your comments re "fervour" and "NS indoctrinization". In fact I'd hesitate to make such broad statements on any armed forces. I'd not attribute the Red Army of 1945 a particularly "communist fervour", rather the ancient concept of "the victor takes it all".

[csThor]

@ Buzzsaw

The better equipment of the Waffen-SS is pretty much as mystical as many urban myths about WW2. For example even in 1944 none of the german Panzer Divisions, regardless whether they were Heer or Waffen-SS, had enough half-tracks to equip its two Panzergrenadier Regiments with them. So even the "elite" SS never got everything it wanted. It often needed more replacements because these divisions tended to get the "suicide assignments" and suffered accordingly.

And as for the Ardennes Offensive ... Sepp Dietrich himself said it best.

"All Hitler wants me to do is to cross a river, capture Brussels, and then go on and take Antwerp! And all this in the worst time of the year through the Ardennes, where the snow is waist deep and there isn't room to deploy four tanks abreast, let alone panzer divisions! Where it doesn't get light until eight and it's dark again at four and with reformed divisions made up chiefly of kids and sick old men - and at Christmas!"

I recently purchased the excellent "The Battle of the Bulge - Then and Now" because I want to make an accurate model of a King Tiger of schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 501 and the advance of Panzergruppe Peiper was held up mostly by the atrocious state of the roads and timely destruction of key river crossings by the US forces. This, in turn, forced them into the confrontation at Stoumont - La Gleize and thwarted any chance of a decisive breakthrough. The whole idea of "Wacht am Rhein" was ludicrous given the looming Red Army in the East ...

[klem]

lonewulf, sorry to add to the pile, but a flaw in your statement about Hitlers objective in Russia retains the flaw in Hitler's own perception of victory in Russia.

Hitler believed that by capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc he would defeat Russia, because the Russians would capitulate. He wouldn't have because they wouldn't have. Stalin would have (and was already) withdrawing Eastward where he was relocating his production facilities and rebuilding his forces as well as drawing on forces from Mongolia etc. If Hitler did not pursue him Stalin would have re-built and come back against him as he did in any case and with far superior numbers and equipment (for the region). If Hitler did pursue him through the sccorched earth of Russia he would have been unable to sustain his forces and eventually he would have been crushed, as in fact happened to his 6th Army when he was no-where near as stretched. He may have captured the Caucuses and the Ukraine wheat fields but sustained forces means both supplies and men and I don't think he had the manpower to stretch that far. These are the reasons why I don't think Hitler could ever have defeated Russia. His perception of victory was flawed.

The Russians might have welcomed Hitler with open arms after Stalin but as Hitler had pronounced them sub-human and the German forces took full advantage of their conquest with killings, rapings, destruction, etc, the Russians weren't likely to take kindly to the Germans.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by klem

lonewulf, sorry to add to the pile, but a flaw in your statement about Hitlers objective in Russia retains the flaw in Hitler's own perception of victory in Russia.

Hitler believed that by capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc he would defeat Russia, because the Russians would capitulate. He wouldn't have because they wouldn't have. Stalin would have (and was already) withdrawing Eastward where he was relocating his production facilities and rebuilding his forces as well as drawing on forces from Mongolia etc. If Hitler did not pursue him Stalin would have re-built and come back against him as he did in any case and with far superior numbers and equipment (for the region). If Hitler did pursue him through the sccorched earth of Russia he would have been unable to sustain his forces and eventually he would have been crushed, as in fact happened to his 6th Army when he was no-where near as stretched. He may have captured the Caucuses and the Ukraine wheat fields but sustained forces means both supplies and men and I don't think he had the manpower to stretch that far. These are the reasons why I don't think Hitler could ever have defeated Russia. His perception of victory was flawed.

The Russians might have welcomed Hitler with open arms after Stalin but as Hitler had pronounced them sub-human and the German forces took full advantage of their conquest with killings, rapings, destruction, etc, the Russians weren't likely to take kindly to the Germans.

I don't agree with this. If anything it was Hitler, rather than his generals, who understood that it was the control of resources, rather than bricks and mortar, that would determine ultimate victory. That is why he withdrew from the Battle for Moscow and thrust towards Stalingrad and the Volga because he understood the economic significance of the Volga to the survival of the Soviet Union. And it was also Hitler who understood that, despite the claims to the contrary, the Soviets didn't have unlimited man power. By the end of the war the Soviets, like everyone else, were beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. That is why Hitler insisted on unwavering defense because he knew that wasteful Soviet tactics worked ultimately in his favour.

And while I think much can be said about the disgraceful behaviour of German forces in the East during the War, I am not aware that they had a reputation for rape. The Red Army on the other hand had a well documented propensity for this type of behaviour.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

I don't agree with this. If anything it was Hitler, rather than his generals, who understood that it was the control of resources, rather than bricks and mortar, that would determine ultimate victory. That is why he withdrew from the Battle for Moscow and thrust towards Stalingrad and the Volga because he understood the economic significance of the Volga to the survival of the Soviet Union.

umm, the original point of Fall Blau was to attack the Caucasus to capture the vital Soviet oil fields there, it was Hitler who got hung up on Stalingrad, which had no resource benefit at all.......

[JG52Krupi]

Right okay I know I was part of the thread derailment but please use a different thread.

Stick to the topic please!