Malta

In the west the British force combined with the French forces outnumbered the Germans considerable.

In the East the Red army of 6 million plus outnumbered the Axis by > 2:1 from the start of the invasion.


1)This is not correct :

The first French AG (the other 2 were on the Maginot Line) had 33 divisions,reinforced by 9 British divisions and was attacked by 2 German Army Groups :AG B with 29 1/2 division and AG A with 45 1/2 division .

2) This is not correct : On 22 june the Germans and their allies had a slight numerical majority .The 5.7 million men of the Red Army were spreaded from Brest-Litowsk to Wladiwostok and included the units of the Home Forces (conscripts and instructors)
 
The Germans worked pretty well on the tactical level, but not on the strategical level. They also faced the problem of success, keeping the conquered areas in control. They were successful on Crete, why didn't they do the same on Malta?

Hitler was concerned about another paratrooper drop after the close call on Crete. Even though it would have been backed up with Italian amphibious landing. The invasion of Malta was approved by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during a meeting at Berchtesgaden in 42. However Hitler called it off, and decided to instead starve - destroy Malta with airpower.
Hitler convinced himself that he could eliminate Malta entirely with airpower and for a period in 41 he really had Malta on the ropes. The Maltese and British garrison lived on starvation rations. Power and utilizes were often unavailable. Animal hides were used to make clothing. nearly 1.3 thousand people died and a large portion of the island people was made homeless, but they never gave in. Eventually enough British reinforcements were brought in for Britain to assume the offensive against the axis supply lines. The end result of the battle of Malta was a victory for Britain.
 
How do you define successful?
The Fallschirmjäger were so badly mauled that they never operated again in an airborne capacity.

The wife's grandfather was a 1942 replacement for those lost on Crete and spent the last 3 years of the war as a fancily dressed infantryman in Italy.

They achieved their goal, airborne forces are very exposed. That's why all major drops have been dropped today :p
 
Hitler was concerned about another paratrooper drop after the close call on Crete. Even though it would have been backed up with Italian amphibious landing. The invasion of Malta was approved by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during a meeting at Berchtesgaden in 42. However Hitler called it off, and decided to instead starve - destroy Malta with airpower.
Hitler convinced himself that he could eliminate Malta entirely with airpower and for a period in 41 he really had Malta on the ropes. The Maltese and British garrison lived on starvation rations. Power and utilizes were often unavailable. Animal hides were used to make clothing. nearly 1.3 thousand people died and a large portion of the island people was made homeless, but they never gave in. Eventually enough British reinforcements were brought in for Britain to assume the offensive against the axis supply lines. The end result of the battle of Malta was a victory for Britain.

So Hitler was concerned about casualties, he changed his opinion about that later, when things went south in Soviet Union.
 
1)This is not correct :

The first French AG (the other 2 were on the Maginot Line) had 33 divisions,reinforced by 9 British divisions and was attacked by 2 German Army Groups :AG B with 29 1/2 division and AG A with 45 1/2 division .

2) This is not correct : On 22 june the Germans and their allies had a slight numerical majority .The 5.7 million men of the Red Army were spreaded from Brest-Litowsk to Wladiwostok and included the units of the Home Forces (conscripts and instructors)

My point was not how - where they were deployed but that both the allied and especially the Red army were larger than that of the standing German army. The Key is how the Germans deployed their solders: highly concentrated AFV's and planes with massive infantry at the chosen points of invasion. This is explained in my previous post #31.
To repeat both the allies and particularly the Soviets armies had numerical superiority in men, AFV and planes. Since they didn't know how to deal with the Blitzkrieg warfare it didn't matter.
 
Since they didn't know how to deal with the Blitzkrieg warfare it didn't matter.


This is not correct :

1)The French and the British followed a defensive strategy because they had not the means for an offensive strategy (there were also other reasons)

2) The Soviet strategy was offensive : if the Germans attacked they would stop the Germans,expel them from the SU and march to Berlin .This strategy failed,not because they didn't know how to deal with the Blitzkrieg warfare,but because they were not ready

3) I would advise against the use of the "Blitzkrieg " terminology,because there was nothing new with Blitzkrieg and because the PzD and motorized divisions did not win the campaign in 1940:they failed at Dunkirk,because they essentially lacked firepower;it happened also in the summer of 1941.

Besides, in 1940 the ID of von Bock advanced at the same speed of the PzD :the tanks could not advance without the protection of the infantry and artillery,and,in 1940,most of these were not motorized .
 
They achieved their goal, airborne forces are very exposed. That's why all major drops have been dropped today :p

Most of the German forces committed at Crete were NOT airborne,thus it is not correct to say that the airborne achieved their goal .
 
Most of the German forces committed at Crete were NOT airborne,thus it is not correct to say that the airborne achieved their goal .

Of course not, airborne forces must be supported by other forces, if they are not they will be a defeated. The role of the airborne is usually to capture vital objectives, they are also spreading confusion among the enemy forces. However, they are really exposed and cannot last long without somebody reaches them.
 
This is not correct :

1)The French and the British followed a defensive strategy because they had not the means for an offensive strategy (there were also other reasons)

2) The Soviet strategy was offensive : if the Germans attacked they would stop the Germans,expel them from the SU and march to Berlin .This strategy failed,not because they didn't know how to deal with the Blitzkrieg warfare,but because they were not ready

3) I would advise against the use of the "Blitzkrieg " terminology,because there was nothing new with Blitzkrieg and because the PzD and motorized divisions did not win the campaign in 1940:they failed at Dunkirk,because they essentially lacked firepower;it happened also in the summer of 1941.

Besides, in 1940 the ID of von Bock advanced at the same speed of the PzD :the tanks could not advance without the protection of the infantry and artillery,and,in 1940,most of these were not motorized .


After the first war the Germans decided to change the current military doctrine and to exploit the tank and mechanized forces into highly mobile units for penetration of defense lines, in pincer movements and trap the defending forces, which also destroys the enemy's supply lines. This was a new doctrine. The Western allied and the Russians used initially their tanks to support the infantry, but the Germans did the opposite. Why the Germans halted their advance toward Dunkirk has nothing to do with the doctrine nor fire power, they German forces were ordered to halt by Hitler in wage hope of getting a peace treaty with the Brits
 
3) I would advise against the use of the "Blitzkrieg " terminology,because there was nothing new with Blitzkrieg and because the PzD and motorized divisions did not win the campaign in 1940:they failed at Dunkirk,because they essentially lacked firepower;it happened also in the summer of 1941.

One Hitler gave orders to stop at Dunkirk and let the Luftwaffe try and finish the British Expeditionary force off. This is what stopped the Panzers at Dunkirk. Hitler never imagined that the British could create the flotilla that came to their rescue, he thought they were trapped.

As for 41 in the USSR. The Germans advanced to gates of Leningrad, took Smolensk and were at the gates of Kharkov by Oct 1, 41. This put the front > = 400 miles deep into the USSR after only a little over 3 months. Does this sound like an army that has run out of anything. They would eventually extend the front line to ~ 1200 miles into the USSR.
 
An additional thing about military doctrines during symmetric warfare. The difference between the attacking force and the defending force is pretty small. Usually the best way to deal with attacking mechanized forces is to have defense zones with a deep and absorb the enemy's forces and counter attack to get the imitative. The forces which are passive can only react on the enemy's activities and that is dangerous. Therefore, attack is the best defense. Ther Germans also attacked where the defense was very limited according to their new doctrine, through the Ardennes. They were able to get their forces behind the French, because the French thought it would be a repeat of the first war, but Germans played after their book not the French and the British book
 
The Western allied and the Russians used initially their tanks to support the infantry, but the Germans did the opposite.


Why the Germans halted their advance toward Dunkirk has nothing to do with the doctrine nor fire power, they German forces were ordered to halt by Hitler in wage hope of getting a peace treaty with the Brits


1)The problem is that tanks had to be supported by infantry and artillery,otherwise they were lost.


2)There is NO proof for this claim,it's the opposite :the halt order was given initially by Rundstedt and confirmed by Hitler :the reason for Rundstedt's halt order was that the tank units were much to weak to capture Dunkirk and that they had to wait on the infantry and artillery .

Even Frieser (a retired general of the Bundeswehr and thus favorably biased to the theory that everything that went wrong was the fault of Hitler) admitted in The Blitzkrieg Legend that the Halt Order was initially given by Rundstedt .
 
An additional thing about military doctrines during symmetric warfare. The difference between the attacking force and the defending force is pretty small. Usually the best way to deal with attacking mechanized forces is to have defense zones with a deep and absorb the enemy's forces and counter attack to get the imitative. The forces which are passive can only react on the enemy's activities and that is dangerous. Therefore, attack is the best defense. Ther Germans also attacked where the defense was very limited according to their new doctrine, through the Ardennes. They were able to get their forces behind the French, because the French thought it would be a repeat of the first war, but Germans played after their book not the French and the British book


The Germans attacked everywhere :from the North of Holland to Sedan .The biggest "tank battle" did not happen in the Ardennes but in Hannut,far to the north of the Ardennes .

The French strategy was determined by French weakness : France was weaker in 1940 than in 1914.The 33 French divisions between the Channel and Sedan needed absolutely the 22 Belgian divisions (no one had any illusions that the 10 Dutch divisions could survive for more than a few days),that's why the French (and the BEF) advanced to the Dyle Line: if the Dyle Line was lost,the war was lost .And it was there that the main German attack occurred,not at Sedan : the Germans attacked the Dyle Line with more than 70 divisions,while only a few divisions attacked at Sedan .If on 28 may,the Dyle Line was still holding,the fate of the divisions that were advancing to the coast (only a part of the PzGruppe Kleist,which was only a part of AGA) was sealed .The theory was that the divisions who advanded to Dunkirk from the West would be the hammer,the other ones would be the anvil .But the hammer was to weak .
 
1)The problem is that tanks had to be supported by infantry and artillery,otherwise they were lost.


2)There is NO proof for this claim,it's the opposite :the halt order was given initially by Rundstedt and confirmed by Hitler :the reason for Rundstedt's halt order was that the tank units were much to weak to capture Dunkirk and that they had to wait on the infantry and artillery .

Even Frieser (a retired general of the Bundeswehr and thus favorably biased to the theory that everything that went wrong was the fault of Hitler) admitted in The Blitzkrieg Legend that the Halt Order was initially given by Rundstedt .

So you admit it was an order by the leadership halting the German advance and not the firearms. The German panzer formations had infantry support, but only for the support or their panzer units and not for dealing with the major enemy forces cut off by the initial advance.
 
The Germans attacked everywhere :from the North of Holland to Sedan .The biggest "tank battle" did not happen in the Ardennes but in Hannut,far to the north of the Ardennes .

The French strategy was determined by French weakness : France was weaker in 1940 than in 1914.The 33 French divisions between the Channel and Sedan needed absolutely the 22 Belgian divisions (no one had any illusions that the 10 Dutch divisions could survive for more than a few days),that's why the French (and the BEF) advanced to the Dyle Line: if the Dyle Line was lost,the war was lost .And it was there that the main German attack occurred,not at Sedan : the Germans attacked the Dyle Line with more than 70 divisions,while only a few divisions attacked at Sedan .If on 28 may,the Dyle Line was still holding,the fate of the divisions that were advancing to the coast (only a part of the PzGruppe Kleist,which was only a part of AGA) was sealed .The theory was that the divisions who advanded to Dunkirk from the West would be the hammer,the other ones would be the anvil .But the hammer was to weak .

The French were weaker because they expected the previous war, not the new doctrine. Numbers of units is insignificant, where you have them counts and how they respond to a breakthrough really does
 
So you admit it was an order by the leadership halting the German advance and not the firearms. The German panzer formations had infantry support, but only for the support or their panzer units and not for dealing with the major enemy forces cut off by the initial advance.


NO :it was both : on the day of the halt order, only weak German units were in the nearness of Dunkirk .
 
Last edited:
NO :it was both :eek:n the day of the halt order, only weak German units were in the nearness of Dunkirk .

According to the doctrine, when the breakthrough has occurred and the motorized forces are moving deeper and deeper into the enemy's territory, the leading units are usually recon forces with a mission to locate the enemy forces and report it to the commanders. The nice thing with the new military doctrine was not get into a slugger fest with the enemy, avoid delaying fights, hit the enemy where he is weak and not where he is strong. There is a weakness with the German military doctrine in the 1940s, the logistic to support the advancing units.
 
Back
Top