Manstein's 1940 Plan: The Austerlitz Remix?

[DoctorViktory]

Hey Guys,

So I Just finished reading "Inside the Nazi War Machine", which gave great depth and detail regarding the execution of Fall Gelb and Fall Rot (I highly recommend it). What I couldn't help but notice was that Manstein's operational plan was almost an exact replay of Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz:

Overall, both plans had the same objective: To draw the mass of the enemy's strength against a deliberately weakened right flank in the hopes that it would open up the enemy center to a strategic counteroffensive that would divide their armies in preparation for defeat-in-detail.

In addition, a deliberate deception ruse was employed in both battles to lure the enemy to advance against their right. Napoleon gave up his favorable position on the Pratzen Heights; Manstein intentionally sent an inferior (in numbers, as compared to the Allied armies moving into Belgium), infantry-heavy force into the Low Countries as was expected (based on 1914 strategy). Once the Allied armies had advanced far enough into Belgium, the Germans unleashed an concentrated assault where it was least expected, the enemy center in the Ardennes. Similarly, once the Russians had advanced down off of the Pratzen heights towards Telnitz, Napoleon struck where it was least expected: two divisions, hidden by a heavy fog (like the Ardennes), suddenly erupted into the enemy center, stormed the Pratzen Heights and split the allied armies in two.

Furthermore, both Manstein and Napoleon planned first to destroy the forces on their weakened right flank by cutting them off from behind, then pushing them into a large body of water (Manstein: the Channel, Napoleon: the Satschan ponds.) Then they both wheeled back left to defeat the remaining forces on their more static left flank (Napoleon: Bernadotte's holding action; Manstein: Enveloping the Maginot Line). Finally, once both flanks had been defeated, a direct forward advance to pursue the retreating armies ensued.

Just thought the similarities were interesting. The strategy is almost like Judo: using the enemy's own momentum and pride against himself by allowing overextension to occur, then counterattacking. I guess the same Judo-like strategy was employed by Manstein in the Third Battle of Kharkov as well.

What do you guys think?
Thanks!
DoctorViktory

[checkov]

As I understand Hitler and Runstead wanted to launch their main attack in a version of the Schflein plan ( again! ). The allies anticipated this and if launched as planned its possible that a great victory for the Wermacht might not have materialized. However a courier carrying detailed plans fell into Allied hands ( actually "neutral" Dutch or Belgium I think who promptly turned them over to the allies).

Hitler was informed of the highly likely discovery of their plans and to his credit realized the danger and had an open enough mind ( at this stage of the war) to accept Guderian/Mansteins alternative plan which was also more in line with the concept of Blitzkrieg anyway. The resulting victory in the West was monumental and should have immortalized its place alongside Hastings, Chalons Yourktown and Marathon. Instead Hitler and Runstead panicked on the very verge of total victory and halted their armor within sight of Dunkirk.

So to answer your question directly I think in its final version it was a bit like the classic Napeoleonic victory but more of a result of a chain of events.

[pugsville]

At Austerlitz I think the plan was to swing right and attack the Austro-Russian line of communication. As the battle unfolded Napoleon changed that to swing left and crush the other wing of the Austro-Russian army.

[detaf]

It was a brilliant plan of van Manstein, the armies in the north were the matadors cloke to draw the french and english in the trap!