How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#256

Post by BDV » 23 Sep 2016, 00:09

The panzers Near the Channel have to make it all the way up to Bruges to completely cut off the Anglo-Franco-Belgian forces. When this was attempted in real life during Barbarossa, 19th Panzer Division had to run back all the way from to Velikiye Luki to Nevel under the pressure of massed withdrawing soviet infantry. Dunkirk alone won't do, Dunkirk and Niewpoort would not do. Maybe Dunkirk, Niewpoort, and Ostend maybe.

Maybe. The spearhead would have to get to Bruges and hold.

I think Herr Rundstedt was right on this one.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#257

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 01:23

BDV wrote:
The panzers Near the Channel have to make it all the way up to Bruges to completely cut off the Anglo-Franco-Belgian forces. When this was attempted in real life during Barbarossa, 19th Panzer Division had to run back all the way from to Velikiye Luki to Nevel under the pressure of massed withdrawing soviet infantry. Dunkirk alone won't do, Dunkirk and Niewpoort would not do. Maybe Dunkirk, Niewpoort, and Ostend maybe.

Maybe. The spearhead would have to get to Bruges and hold.

I think Herr Rundstedt was right on this one.
Actually no, because the Belgians surrendered on the 28th and with their surrender Niuewport and Bruges were lost, which would be before the retreating BEF could get there. Dunkirk really was the end of the line for the BEF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... ve_battles


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#258

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Sep 2016, 02:13

Michael Kenny wrote:
Frontage please so we can have an idea of armour density. I know it was at least 1000 km
Normandy was 100 km wide x 30 km deep .
Looks like I am going to have to answer my own question.

Normandy map inserted on a partial Bagration map to (roughly) same scale
qwT174_stitch copy.jpg
Now I know the exploitation phase in Normandy opened up a larger area for the advance but concentrate on the original frontage where the German front was breached. Look at the North-south frontage on the Russian Front map compared to the East-West frontage on the Normandy map. A straight line N-S on the Russian map is over 600 km.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#259

Post by BDV » 23 Sep 2016, 03:40

stg 44 wrote:Actually no, because the Belgians surrendered on the 28th and with their surrender Niuewport and Bruges were lost, which would be before the retreating BEF could get there. Dunkirk really was the end of the line for the BEF.
The Halt Order was given on 24. At that time moment more coalition men are closer to Nieuwpoort than Dunkirk IMO.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#260

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 03:51

BDV wrote:
stg 44 wrote:Actually no, because the Belgians surrendered on the 28th and with their surrender Niuewport and Bruges were lost, which would be before the retreating BEF could get there. Dunkirk really was the end of the line for the BEF.
The Halt Order was given on 24. At that time moment more coalition men are closer to Nieuwpoort than Dunkirk IMO.
Notice what you said there? Coalition men. I.E. not Brits. Brits were nowhere near Nieuwpoort and would first have tried to go to Dunkirk and failing that redirect to Belgian held territory, which is gone on the 28th, i.e. the day the evacuation seriously started historically. The Germans were there on the 29th and it was not nearly as easy to hold as Dunkirk. Plus the Germans at Dunkirk, reinforced by the 28th, would be attacking in that direction.

Map for the 28th:
http://wwii-photos-maps.com/lagewest/19 ... -1940.html

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#261

Post by BDV » 23 Sep 2016, 10:59

You assume that the panzers will succeed and that the thin panzer line will hold.

I wouldn't bet against 1 but I wouldn't bet for 2.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#262

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 13:42

BDV wrote:You assume that the panzers will succeed and that the thin panzer line will hold.

I wouldn't bet against 1 but I wouldn't bet for 2.
Thin Panzer line? By the 26th, when the first of the major British formations started showing up, the Panzers had been heavily reinforced.
http://wwii-photos-maps.com/lagewest/19 ... -1940.html
1st Panzer division in toto would be there holding the line against 1 British division when the SS division A-H would be supporting them. 6th Panzer was moving in and the Brits were hard pressed all along the Canal Line, so couldn't just peel off the necessary divisions to throw at the Dunkirk line. They can either attack at Dunkirk or head to Nieuwport, not both. In the case of the former they lacked the strength to break through off the march on the 26th or really thereafter due to the constant pressure all along the line.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#263

Post by Boby » 23 Sep 2016, 14:32

LAH at the time was a motorized infantry regiment, not a division.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#264

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 15:39

Boby wrote:LAH at the time was a motorized infantry regiment, not a division.
Nevertheless it's not just one Panzer division vs. the entire BEF.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#265

Post by ljadw » 23 Sep 2016, 17:15

It were elements of one PzD vs superior British and French forces .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#266

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 17:47

ljadw wrote:It were elements of one PzD vs superior British and French forces .
Superior? There was one reserve French division strung out along the Aa Canal line that had come from combat in Belgium and already lost several bridgeheads to those 'elements of a Panzer division', which Guderian was obliged to give up based on the Halt Order. The only British forces were Usher Force, which was a hodgepodge of a few British artillery units. That was on the 24th. On the afternoon of the 25th part of the British 48th division showed up and set up positions south of Dunkirk at Cassel. On the 26th a few more British units showed up and it wasn't until the evening of the 26th that the Halt Order was lifted historically and for that night and most of the 27th German forces spent time reclaiming the bridgeheads they abandoned on the 24th. Had the Rundstedt order of the 23rd been lifted on the 24th the bridgeheads wouldn't have been abandoned and the French 68th division on the Aa Canal would have had their front breached. Usherforce was in no position to defend Dunkirk and would have been swiftly overrun by a recon battalion, let alone the better part of a Panzer division. Then the Germans have most of the day on the 25th before elements of the British 48th division show up at Cassel, south of what would be the Germans Dunkirk perimeter, having just been removed from the line further south. By then the French 68th division would have been shattered, Usher Force overrun, and only elements of the 48th divisions in place to launch an attack off the march. Meanwhile more and more German units are showing up and the SS motorized regiment would be there to assist the Panzers at Dunkirk as more of Guderian's Panzer corps comes in. Of course the weather is changing, meaning German defenses at Dunkirk are aided by swampy ground around their defensive perimeter making a British attack by a limited forces very difficult.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#267

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Sep 2016, 17:53

Makes you wonder why (if it were so easy) that it was not done at the time. Coulda-shoulda-mighta.......there is no end to the fantasy world of the faithful.
330,000 men evacuated under the nose of the mighty German Army 'at its peak' and able to return in 1944 to return the favour!

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#268

Post by Orwell1984 » 23 Sep 2016, 18:26

stg 44 wrote:
ljadw wrote:It were elements of one PzD vs superior British and French forces .
Superior? There was one reserve French division strung out along the Aa Canal line that had come from combat in Belgium and already lost several bridgeheads to those 'elements of a Panzer division', which Guderian was obliged to give up based on the Halt Order. The only British forces were Usher Force, which was a hodgepodge of a few British artillery units. That was on the 24th. On the afternoon of the 25th part of the British 48th division showed up and set up positions south of Dunkirk at Cassel. On the 26th a few more British units showed up and it wasn't until the evening of the 26th that the Halt Order was lifted historically and for that night and most of the 27th German forces spent time reclaiming the bridgeheads they abandoned on the 24th. Had the Rundstedt order of the 23rd been lifted on the 24th the bridgeheads wouldn't have been abandoned and the French 68th division on the Aa Canal would have had their front breached. Usherforce was in no position to defend Dunkirk and would have been swiftly overrun by a recon battalion, let alone the better part of a Panzer division. Then the Germans have most of the day on the 25th before elements of the British 48th division show up at Cassel, south of what would be the Germans Dunkirk perimeter, having just been removed from the line further south. By then the French 68th division would have been shattered, Usher Force overrun, and only elements of the 48th divisions in place to launch an attack off the march. Meanwhile more and more German units are showing up and the SS motorized regiment would be there to assist the Panzers at Dunkirk as more of Guderian's Panzer corps comes in. Of course the weather is changing, meaning German defenses at Dunkirk are aided by swampy ground around their defensive perimeter making a British attack by a limited forces very difficult.
Perhaps it may be worth a revisit to this thread you previously particpated in:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=45
see post from Rich on February 13 2014
n fact, on 23 May, as I noted, 6. Panzerdivision was rather far away from the weak bridgeheads established by the 8. Panzerdivision. For the British side, from data also compiled from "KTB", the notion that a "single battalion" opposed the 8. Panzerdivision bridgeheads is also incorrect. From north to south from Saint Pol to Arras, the line developing on 23 May was: 68th French Infantry Division moving from Dunkirk to Mardyck, Usher Force (6th Green Howards, 1st and 3rd Super-Heavy Batteries RA, 52nd Heavy Regiment RA), Pol Force (2nd/5th West Yorkshires and field battery, 65th Field Regiment RA), Mac Force (127th Brigade of 42nd British Infantry Division, two field regiments RA, and an AT battery), Wood Force, 44th British Infantry Division, and 2nd British Infantry Division.
So as can be seen you have the composition of Usherforce wrong for starters

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/940BEAD.pdf

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#269

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 18:58

Orwell1984 wrote: Perhaps it may be worth a revisit to this thread you previously particpated in:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&start=45
see post from Rich on February 13 2014
n fact, on 23 May, as I noted, 6. Panzerdivision was rather far away from the weak bridgeheads established by the 8. Panzerdivision. For the British side, from data also compiled from "KTB", the notion that a "single battalion" opposed the 8. Panzerdivision bridgeheads is also incorrect. From north to south from Saint Pol to Arras, the line developing on 23 May was: 68th French Infantry Division moving from Dunkirk to Mardyck, Usher Force (6th Green Howards, 1st and 3rd Super-Heavy Batteries RA, 52nd Heavy Regiment RA), Pol Force (2nd/5th West Yorkshires and field battery, 65th Field Regiment RA), Mac Force (127th Brigade of 42nd British Infantry Division, two field regiments RA, and an AT battery), Wood Force, 44th British Infantry Division, and 2nd British Infantry Division.
So as can be seen you have the composition of Usherforce wrong for starters

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/940BEAD.pdf
The 'heavy regiment' was an artillery unit. The 6th Battalion Green Howards of the Yorkshire regiment apparently was there as well, the only infantry unit attached. I thought they were added later, but apparently they were there from the 23rd on near Gravelines on Aa Canal with the French. Apparently they were a newly raised unit of reservists.

The units opposite the German 8th Panzer were the French 68th division. The SS unit and British divisions were all to the south. On the Aa Canal where the 8th Panzer had taken bridgeheads they faced only the French and on the 25th elements of the British 48th division arrived and set up south of the Aa Canal. All the other British "Forces" units were to the South of the Aa Canal other than Usher, which had it's one infantry battalion on the Aa Canal and the artillery to the rear.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: How did the Germans last over three years once Barbarossa failed?

#270

Post by Michael Kenny » 23 Sep 2016, 19:36

stg 44 wrote: The 'heavy regiment' was an artillery unit.
Indeed it was.That is why it has 'RA' after the reg/number. Not only an artillery unit but a 9.2in (230mm) Howitzer Unit.

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”