Fall Gelb

cheddar cheese · 05-09-2005, 04:16 PM

It wasnt retreating - It was advancing in a different way

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-09-2005, 04:26 PM

Great pics here again.

plan_D · 05-09-2005, 11:39 PM

There is a difference between retreating and running away, CC. Retreating is withdrawing from the face of a superior enemy as an army, unit cohesion still in existance. Operation Dynamo wasn't a panic, it was a well laid plan that went much better than expected.

Running away is everyone turning tail and running without any care in the world for their force or their unit. They just want to survive. That is called being routed.

A retreat and a tactical withdrawal can also be seperated. For instance, if Guderian had ordered his 24th Panzer Corps (which he wanted to do) away from Moscow in December 1941, and placed them in positions around Smolensk then it would have been a tactical withdrawal.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-10-2005, 05:36 AM

Tactical withdrawals also can be necessarry to keep the strength of your forces. Better to run and live to fight another day. Throughout history tactical withdrawals have been used to the advantage of the unit with drawing.

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-10-2005, 11:25 AM

yes there is no point in staying to fight a battle you cannot win when you can retreat, unless it's to but time or defend a specific objective......

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-11-2005, 04:20 PM

And that is still questionable, unless there is deffinative help in the future for your soldiers.

plan_D · 05-12-2005, 02:49 AM

Yes, if you can't defend your objective effectively without losing a mass majority of your troops and there's no help around the next corner it is best to withdraw.

Von Paulus' 6th Army was best to withdraw from Stalingrad in 1942. It wouldn't have been a retreat but a tactical withdrawal from an objective deemed, by Hitler, to be held.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-12-2005, 08:52 AM

Hitler would not have let him withdraw.

Medvedya · 05-12-2005, 09:26 AM

Which is what you get when you have a Corporal directing the battle plan.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-12-2005, 09:59 AM

A crazy deranged corporal as a matter of fact!

plan_D · 05-12-2005, 10:28 AM

There were many mistakes made before the attempt into Stalingrad, all of which being Hitler's. The original plan was good, 6th Army would advance to the Volga, cutting off the Caucasus. Then 4th Panzer Army would advance into the Caucasus capturing the oil fields and encircling any Soviet Armies there.

The first problem was that the Soviets realising they lacked the skill or numbers to face the Wehrmacht in pitched battles just fell back. The German observation of the Allies was that they fought for land instead of over it. The Wehrmacht always aimed to crush the opposition army, not capture land or towns.
Hitler got excited because the 6th Army was advancing with little opposition. He assumed the Soviets lacked any armies that were capable of resistance. He diverted forces from the 6th Army and sent them to join the 4th Panzer Army which he sent to the Caucasus before the trap had been set.
The 6th Army now deprived of vital armour and fuel had to carry on with the original plan, which it in fact achieved. It reached the Volga, cutting off the Caucasus. Then, the critical blow came, Hitler ordered the 6th Army to take Stalingrad! That was never a target for the Wehrmacht didn't care for the cities or towns, they wanted the enemy army!
Then after the realisation that the 6th Army needed more troops, after throwing in it's reserves and not crushing the Soviet bridgehead on the east coast of the Volga, ordered German units on the 6ths' flank to join in, while Romanian, Slovakian and Italian units with no heavy anti-tank artillery took their place!

Then when the Soviets had encircled the 6th Army, they only thought they'd captured 30,000! The 6th Army could have smashed straight through with little effort! 250,000 men would have slaughtered the Soviet troops and just smashed out of the encirclement. But no! Moron Hitler doesn't have a clue and says that 4th Panzer Army is on it's way. In actual fact, the Soviet Armies had pushed further, all the way to Rostov which encircled elements of the 4th Panzer Army and Romanian 3rd Army in Caucasus as well as 6th Army in Stalingrad.

Had Hitler allowed the breakout, Stalingrad would have been the biggest disaster for the Soviets. Instead it was allowed to fester and Goering thought he could deliver 500 tons a day, when 6th Army already said it needed at least 800 tons. Even then, only 80 tons made it everyday. And, by then 7 Soviet Armies had encircled Stalingrad and then the Soviets made a mistake, by attacking Stalingrad instead of letting the German troops to rot!

Out of 100,000 troops captured in Stalingrad, only 6000 returned to Germany.

Wow, that was all off memory...quite a large rant.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-12-2005, 10:35 AM

The biggest mistake Hitler made was put himself in control of the military, if he had left it to his real Military Commanders things may have been different atleast for a little while longer then they did. Hitler was fixed on one big picture and would not see the the other things that had to be accomplished. He basically had tunnel vision, he could see the victorious end but did not see the things that had to be accomplished first.

Anyhow my grandfather was at Stalingrad, it is where he was wounded and captured. He fortunatly came home, or there would not have been me.

Medvedya · 05-12-2005, 10:44 AM

One lucky, lucky, guy! My mates granddad was in the Army Group South with the Hungarian Army and had similar good fortune.

plan_D · 05-12-2005, 10:48 AM

That would have been a tragedy not to have you, Adler.

Yes, Hitler was not a military tactician. I can safely say Russia would have been captured in 1942 had he left it to the German General Staff.

I don't know about the rest but N.Africa wasn't taken because the Royal Navy was depriving Rommel of supplies. Contrary to belief that it was ALL Hitler's fault. Out of every 4 supply ships going to Rommel, only 1 got through.
Plus Rommel made the fatal error of saying he could take Eygpt with Malta intact. The Luftwaffe had to support him, by the time they diverted to Malta it was too late.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-12-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

That would have been a tragedy not to have you, Adler.

I am sure there are atleast one person here at this forum that would have been a great thing because then I would not have around.....

As for the Hitler not a tactician you are correct. He pretty much threw away all of Germany's victories and lost the war for them.

As for Rommel his big mistake was not taking Tobruk. Had Tobruk fallen, the British would not have recieved supplies and he could pushed them out of Egypt. As you said Rommel was not getting supplies but the British were through Tobruk. Had Rommel taken Tobruk and the Germans could have taken all the Islands in the Med, then they could have controled the supplies flowing into N. Afrika. Then things may have been different but only if the Luftwaffe and U-Boots could have protected the supply ships. The one thing that N. Afrika did accomplish for the Germans was bogging down the British and keeping them from putting up more of a defense for Greece.