where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 9680
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 06 Jun 2019 06:19

The KM had not the manpower to man the barges needed to transport the Sea Lion forces : more than 20000 were needed and they were not available .The KM could not provide 20000 men .
The left flank of the invasion forces would need more than 30 hours to go to the British coast : distance 85 miles, speed 2/3 km per hour .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6623
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 06 Jun 2019 10:21

Hi MarkN,

Is there some doubt in your mind that the Germans wanted the shortest war possible? If so, why?

Do the facts that (1) they only began with five months of trained replacements (actually two, as losses were higher than anticipated) and (2) that they had not prepared for winter warfare, not indicate that they were hoping Barbarossa could be concluded by around November?

Of course, if you consider 5 months not to be a short campaign, given the scale of the task, then, at least by your own reference, you might be right.

The trouble is you haven't defined what you consider a short campaign. Two months? Three months? Four months? Five months? Six months? More? Less?

Cheers,

Sid.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3660
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by BDV » 06 Jun 2019 14:22

Sid Guttridge wrote: (2) that [GERMANS] had not prepared for winter warfare, not indicate that they were hoping Barbarossa could be concluded by around November?
What precisely do you mean by "not prepared for winter warfare"?
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

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2409
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by MarkN » 06 Jun 2019 17:29

Sid Guttridge wrote:
06 Jun 2019 10:21
Is there some doubt in your mind that the Germans wanted the shortest war possible? If so, why?

Do the facts that (1) they only began with five months of trained replacements (actually two, as losses were higher than anticipated) and (2) that they had not prepared for winter warfare, not indicate that they were hoping Barbarossa could be concluded by around November?

Of course, if you consider 5 months not to be a short campaign, given the scale of the task, then, at least by your own reference, you might be right.

The trouble is you haven't defined what you consider a short campaign. Two months? Three months? Four months? Five months? Six months? More? Less?
I have no idea whether you have a bona fide interest in engaging in serious discussion on this topic or whether you are just trying to pick an online fight with someone.

If it's the former, I suggest you take it up with the poster who repeatedly claims Unternehmen BARBAROSSA was the plan/strategy for a "short war". I see no point and certainly have no desire to engage with you on this matter on his or her behalf.

If it's the latter, I suggst you find some other poster to wind up and annoy with your nonsense.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Paul Lakowski » 06 Jun 2019 21:07

ljadw wrote:
06 Jun 2019 06:19
The KM had not the manpower to man the barges needed to transport the Sea Lion forces : more than 20000 were needed and they were not available .The KM could not provide 20000 men .
The left flank of the invasion forces would need more than 30 hours to go to the British coast : distance 85 miles, speed 2/3 km per hour .
That's the problem -the FSL Pound assumed Norway style Port to Port invasion , that KM had already conducted months earlier. This exposes the weakness in RN strategy. Since LW would pound south coast ports [including Dover ] , while the RAF avoided major battles, just like Dunkirk, meant RN had to run the gauntlet at either side of the channel to reach any fleet that would be dispersed all around England and Scotland.

The timely KM barge fleet invasion size is examined in detail by German sources in "INVASION OF ENGLAND 1940" Peter Schenk, but a glimpse can be gained by averaging out the fleet sizes in 1939/1940 [end of year numbers] 245 to 400= >300 vessels...... not counting hundreds of fishing vessels and 1000-2000 barges.

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_list.htm

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Max Payload » 06 Jun 2019 23:12

Paul Lakowski wrote:
06 Jun 2019 01:39
Being raised in Britain, with a father was drafted into the WEHRMACHT from Poland , plus uncle's who were in British service- I've listen to these stories for decades . When we moved to Canada I was exposed to the whole commonwealth thing - along with AMERICA history and the whole NATO/WARPACT thing. Pretty well rounded, but we never believed the RN could stop any invasion FAST ENOUGH , even with RAF support.

By the time Germans are landed enough forces in England, so their recon units are all over the south coast, the War Cabinet would push Churchill aside and call for an armistice.
This has probably been posted many times before -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... _(wargame)
but at least it was conducted by people who were not armchair generals, and their conclusion was unanimous.
As for the war cabinet, in September 1940 it would not have been for rolling over in the event of recon units on the south coast.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Paul Lakowski » 07 Jun 2019 06:10

Max Payload wrote:
06 Jun 2019 23:12
Paul Lakowski wrote:
06 Jun 2019 01:39
Being raised in Britain, with a father was drafted into the WEHRMACHT from Poland , plus uncle's who were in British service- I've listen to these stories for decades . When we moved to Canada I was exposed to the whole commonwealth thing - along with AMERICA history and the whole NATO/WARPACT thing. Pretty well rounded, but we never believed the RN could stop any invasion FAST ENOUGH , even with RAF support.

By the time Germans are landed enough forces in England, so their recon units are all over the south coast, the War Cabinet would push Churchill aside and call for an armistice.
This has probably been posted many times before -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... _(wargame)
but at least it was conducted by people who were not armchair generals, and their conclusion was unanimous.
As for the war cabinet, in September 1940 it would not have been for rolling over in the event of recon units on the south coast.
Yes well had Dunkirk followed plan , a follow up port to port invasion was possible - after the success of the Norway Operation. Prewar thinking accepted the best the KM could expect was occupying the LOW LANDS [aka WW-I] , the KM planned for massed barge landings along the French coast to turn the flank on any WALLIE defence, while port to port raids could be mounted against UK.

The Norway invasion opened up the possibility for more damaging attacks on UK ....massed seizing ports adjacent to major RN ports- leading to combined attacks on those ports to destroy RN forces and or their bases. So the First Sea Lord Pound was not far wrong. The shock and panic it would generate could very well topple the Cabinet under the right situation. Truth be told Hitler was never going to risk such an operation on the heels of the stunning success of Case Blue.

We all suffered through Sandhurst war-game . It was commissioned by a newspaper to promote sales and reads like some kind of 1970s NATO exercise, thus with little realism. When you struggle through Schenker , you realise the 'Sandhurst' game did not do much research. My uncle used to be involved in these type of staged naval NATO war-games and always reminded me "garbage in garbage out".

Wallie Wank might be a better description.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Hanny » 07 Jun 2019 07:45

Paul Lakowski wrote:
06 Jun 2019 21:07
ljadw wrote:
06 Jun 2019 06:19
The KM had not the manpower to man the barges needed to transport the Sea Lion forces : more than 20000 were needed and they were not available .The KM could not provide 20000 men .
The left flank of the invasion forces would need more than 30 hours to go to the British coast : distance 85 miles, speed 2/3 km per hour .
That's the problem -the FSL Pound assumed Norway style Port to Port invasion , that KM had already conducted months earlier. This exposes the weakness in RN strategy. Since LW would pound south coast ports [including Dover ] , while the RAF avoided major battles, just like Dunkirk, meant RN had to run the gauntlet at either side of the channel to reach any fleet that would be dispersed all around England and Scotland.

The timely KM barge fleet invasion size is examined in detail by German sources in "INVASION OF ENGLAND 1940" Peter Schenk, but a glimpse can be gained by averaging out the fleet sizes in 1939/1940 [end of year numbers] 245 to 400= >300 vessels...... not counting hundreds of fishing vessels and 1000-2000 barges.

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_list.htm
jesk has competition, your posts indicate you prefer fantasy over history. :lol:
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Max Payload » 07 Jun 2019 08:49

Paul Lakowski wrote:
07 Jun 2019 06:10
We all suffered through Sandhurst war-game .
We?
Paul Lakowski wrote:
07 Jun 2019 06:10

When you struggle through Schenker , you realise the 'Sandhurst' game did not do much research. My uncle used to be involved in these type of staged naval NATO war-games and always reminded me "garbage in garbage out".

As a study of German amphibious arrangements for Sealion, I’m not clear what Schenk’s book, in the absence of any consideration of British defence planning, brings to a discussion of the likely success or otherwise of the invasion.
In what sense were the input parameters of the Sandhurst study ‘garbage’?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6623
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 07 Jun 2019 10:17

Hi Paul,

If I recall correctly from the various wargames conducted, the conclusion was that the Germans might get a foothold ashore by good judgement, chance, or surprise, but the follow-up waves would be unable to get across to reinforce them in strength because the Royal Navy would flood the Channel with warships and the original beach-heads would thereafter wither on the vine through lack of supplies.

You seem to be discounting the fact that the basic raison d'etre of the Royal Navy was to protect the British Isles from invasion. As such, it was likely to throw everything at the invasion - and it had a lot to throw.

The RAF was also playing a canny game. Most of its forces were not committed to fighting the Luftwaffe in the south-east of England, but rotated through the area. However, you can be pretty certain that this would have changed had the invasion actually been launched.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 9680
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by ljadw » 07 Jun 2019 11:48

Paul Lakowski wrote:
06 Jun 2019 21:07
ljadw wrote:
06 Jun 2019 06:19
The KM had not the manpower to man the barges needed to transport the Sea Lion forces : more than 20000 were needed and they were not available .The KM could not provide 20000 men .
The left flank of the invasion forces would need more than 30 hours to go to the British coast : distance 85 miles, speed 2/3 km per hour .
That's the problem -the FSL Pound assumed Norway style Port to Port invasion , that KM had already conducted months earlier. This exposes the weakness in RN strategy. Since LW would pound south coast ports [including Dover ] , while the RAF avoided major battles, just like Dunkirk, meant RN had to run the gauntlet at either side of the channel to reach any fleet that would be dispersed all around England and Scotland.

The timely KM barge fleet invasion size is examined in detail by German sources in "INVASION OF ENGLAND 1940" Peter Schenk, but a glimpse can be gained by averaging out the fleet sizes in 1939/1940 [end of year numbers] 245 to 400= >300 vessels...... not counting hundreds of fishing vessels and 1000-2000 barges.

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_list.htm
Ammunition, fuel, tanks, trucks,artillery , ..could be transported only by big ships, not by barges and unloaded in ports which were intact . As Germany could not capture intact ports,....

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Paul Lakowski » 07 Jun 2019 23:33

You all miss the point , War Cabinet might have tolerated Churchill -but if they lose Dunkirk -the next step was to do a Norway Style port to port invasion, which would collapse the government!

At this time in the war , finding other groups of warships at sea was damn near impossible, most merchant shipping went undetected/unchecked at that time... as was the case in NORWAY. In most AXIS/ALLIED naval clashes of this period RN detection time was 8 hours behind KM warship movement and were mostly twice as effective at inflicting damage as RN/ALLIED ships where.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Paul Lakowski » 08 Jun 2019 02:55

Sid Guttridge wrote:
07 Jun 2019 10:17
Hi Paul,

If I recall correctly from the various wargames conducted, the conclusion was that the Germans might get a foothold ashore by good judgement, chance, or surprise, but the follow-up waves would be unable to get across to reinforce them in strength because the Royal Navy would flood the Channel with warships and the original beach-heads would thereafter wither on the vine through lack of supplies.

You seem to be discounting the fact that the basic raison d'etre of the Royal Navy was to protect the British Isles from invasion. As such, it was likely to throw everything at the invasion - and it had a lot to throw.

The RAF was also playing a canny game. Most of its forces were not committed to fighting the Luftwaffe in the south-east of England, but rotated through the area. However, you can be pretty certain that this would have changed had the invasion actually been launched.

Cheers,

Sid.
Hi Sid
RN reason for being was Convoy protection and 2/3 to 3/4 of their forces were deployed overseas. Only 76 older DD were tasked with anti invasion. In addition 800 trawlers were available however 1/2 of those were ASW for convoy escort with D/C & AAMG. The rest were armed with a 12lb gun & AAMG.Sources report the RN did not see its mission as stopping an invasion, that was the mission of the RAF and the ARMY.

The whole idea of German war fighting was to fix the enemy in place at the operation /strategic level and make their defence brittle. That way the operational maneuver-strike might/should lead to collapse of the enemy morale . If Dunkirk happens as planned- Britain would be much more defenceless and opportunity for such moral collapse increases. If prewar thinking pans out the KM would start raids up and down the British coast with Norway style invasion. That could result in government collapse.

Hanny
Banned
Posts: 855
Joined: 26 Oct 2008 20:40

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Hanny » 08 Jun 2019 11:30

Paul Lakowski wrote:
07 Jun 2019 23:33
You all miss the point , War Cabinet might have tolerated Churchill -but if they lose Dunkirk -the next step was to do a Norway Style port to port invasion, which would collapse the government!

At this time in the war , finding other groups of warships at sea was damn near impossible, most merchant shipping went undetected/unchecked at that time... as was the case in NORWAY. In most AXIS/ALLIED naval clashes of this period RN detection time was 8 hours behind KM warship movement and were mostly twice as effective at inflicting damage as RN/ALLIED ships where.
Nope, the point is your a fantasist. :lol:

The ‘Brief Statement of Reasons for Cancellation of Invasion of England’, prepared by the German Naval Historical Staff in 1944, states:

As the preliminary work and preparations proceeded, the exceptional difficulties became more and more obvious. The more forcibly the risks were brought home, the dimmer grew faith in success… just as in Napoleon’s invasion plans in 1805, the fundamental requirement for success was lacking, that is, command of the sea. This lack of superiority at sea was to be compensated for by air superiority. But it was never even possible to destroy enemy sea superiority by use of our own air superiority… The sea area in which we were to operate was dominated by a well prepared opponent who was determined to fight to the utmost of his ability. The greatest difficulty was bound to be that of maintaining the flow of supplies and food. The enemy’s fleet and other means of naval defence had to be considered as a decisive factor. Owing to the weakness of our naval forces there could be no effective guarantee against the enemy breaking into our area of transports, despite our mine barrages on the flanks and despite our air superiority.


At the beginning of September the Admiralty had disposed sixty-seven (plus six cruisers) for immediate response to an invasion alarm. The first warning of the invasion’s sailing would come, it was hoped, from RAF reconnaissance over the assembly ports. But in case – as was likely – the Germans waited until after dark before commencing their 12-hour[2] toil across to England, the Royal Navy had a pool of 700 armed patrol craft (requisitioned motor yachts and trawlers) of whom around 200 were on picket duty “off the north coast of France”[3] every night. So, owing to either the air reconnaissance or the trip-wire patrols, there was a high likelihood that the German invasion armadas would have found British destroyers[4] between them and their intended landing-beaches when they approached on the morning of D-Day. As well as torpedoes and guns, each destroyer carried 40 depth-charges filled with 600-800lbs of Amatol (depending on Mk) which could have demolished the tows of wallowing barges packed with soldiers and horses.

The second tranche of RN interventions would have been the thirty-four corvettes and sloops, and the MTBs, employed on East Coast and Channel convoy routes. Then, within twenty-four hours of the alert, the cruisers and capital units of the Home Fleet would have started to arrive from the far north and west. 165 minesweepers of varying pedigree were at hand to maintain swept channels. Finally, many of the thirty-five submarines based in home waters would have headed for the Channel to disrupt the shuttling back and forth of barges required by the German build-up for the next ten days.


https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0_0001.pdf
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Max Payload
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 21 Jun 2008 14:37

Re: where the "Hitler should have listen to his general " come from?

Post by Max Payload » 08 Jun 2019 12:52

Paul Lakowski wrote:
07 Jun 2019 23:33
You all miss the point , War Cabinet might have tolerated Churchill -but if they lose Dunkirk -the next step was to do a Norway Style port to port invasion, which would collapse the government!
Paul Lakowski wrote:
08 Jun 2019 02:55
Sources report the RN did not see its mission as stopping an invasion .... If Dunkirk happens as planned- Britain would be much more defenceless and opportunity for such moral collapse increases. If prewar thinking pans out the KM would start raids up and down the British coast with Norway style invasion. That could result in government collapse.
In sequential posts we have gone from “would collapse the government” to “could result in government collapse”.
The mission of the Royal Navy was to carry out the orders emanating from the Admiralty, and the Admiralty’s absolute priority in the event of invasion would have been to use its every resource to defeat that invasion. And as Hanny has indicated above, those resources were considerable.
You seem to be suggesting (the point we have all missed?) that an an-hoc invasion should have been attempted in the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk.Yet in the ‘port to port’ Norway invasion operation the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was crippled. If it had tried the same trick a few weeks later in Britain it would have been annihilated. Any embarked troops (presumably having been diverted from fighting the French) would have been starved of supplies and forced to surrender.
Last edited by Max Payload on 08 Jun 2019 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”