Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
World War II - West Front Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Panzer Halt, English Channel
CJH    3/11/2005 12:57:46 PM
I have read a few descriptions of the Germans halting short of Dunquerk instead of gooing in for the kill on the beaches. The most widely accepted explanation is that they had arrived at bogs or swamps and therefore the panzer unit commanders ordered halt. But I read "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian who was the father of the German blitzkrieg technique and commanded tanks in that campaign and he wrote the order to halt the panzers at the channel coast came from army headquarters in Berlin and not from the scene. What with Ruldolf Hess' flying to England, his "suicide" while in the custody of the allies, the open admiration of the Duke of Windsor for Hitler and the fashionable admiration of the Nazis by the pre-war British upper class one has cause to wonder. I read in "Der Fuhrer" by Conrad Heiden that Hitler had given a 1930(I believe) speech on radio on the occasion of the London Naval Treaty. Hitler related how the United States which had a two ocean navy had been left on par by the treaty with Great Britain which had a seven ocean navy and he expressed his opinion that the British had gotten the short end and therefore should look away from America and toward Europe for its future. Despite the importance of the British naval blockade of 1914-1918, Hitler did not plan on having a dominating navy. We know the importance he placed on land block power and know he was counting on controlling Russian resources but he must have known he was leaving a back door open if he neglected a surface navy presence on the Atlantic. Maybe Hitler had been convinced by someone who had connections high up in Britain that he had friends on the inside who could deliver Britain. Maybe halting the tanks was with that in mind. Any comments?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   10/11/2005 9:34:58 PM
Hitler had wanted the panzer troops to halt several times earlier in the campaign. On the 15 & 16th May he became very concerned the tank corps were too far advanced and ordered them halted. Guderian & the other corps commanders better realized the disorder of the French armys and argued against the order. They also circumvented the order and continued to advance their pz divs. A few days later Hitler, along with some of the senior army commaders became even more concerned that a Allied counterattack would destroy the over extended tank corps. A actual halt was enforced for a little over 24 hours. As the panzer corps approached the coast Hitler and some of the other senior leaders then became concerned the tank forces would be completely expended in fighting amoung the coastal cities. When Goering made his claim for the destruction of the Allied armys at Dunkirk it seemd a logical option to take. The idea that the panzer regiments might be useless after fighting along the coast was reinforced by the numbers on tank and rifle losses the panzer divsions had taken thus far. These reports were many days behind the actual date, but were quite disturbing to those in Germany. Between combat losses and mechanical breakdowns the regimants had lost a average of 50% of their tanks by the 20th of May. Rommels 7th div arrived at the coast with 25 tanks, out of the 220 it had begain the campaign with. Certainly more than half the lost tanks were repaired and quickly returned to service. But, Hitler had no assurance of this as he reviewed the reports on rapidly increasing losses. Allowing the tank corps to cease combat while the infantry and Luftwaffe finished the job must have seemed prudent. As for 'letting the British get away' , the idea does not fit the thinking of the moment. The British had no confidence thay could evacuate so many men so quickly. Admiral Ramseys initial estimates were for perhaps 30,000 men. Even after the evacuation was in full swing the British leaders had little idea they could sustain such a effort. If the Brits estimates were so pessimistic it is hardly believeable the Germans would think otherwise. Remarks by several German commanders indicate they thought the Allied soldiers at Dunkirk as good as in prision. panzers or no panzers.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   10/18/2005 8:17:21 PM
Most of the accounts I have read credit this mistake to Hitler himself. It was just one more attempt by Hitler to ease Britains exit from the war. He did have a notion that Brits were part aryan and atleast they should see the sence of a anti soviet coallion. Infact alot of prewar politics centered around that concept. Across Europe the thinking was that the explicit threat stated by Stalin was far worse than any doubts they would have about Her Hitler. So in many ways Germany was allowed to rehabilitate itself on the assumption that it would have to shoulder the burden of fighting off the soviets.After Munich that all changed of course. Hitler himself believed he had such a control of events that he could pick and choose who he would fight with and told his generals not to worry they would not have to face UK & USA until later [1943/45]. So no real UK invasion plans were included in the initial war plans. Had they made preperations for such an attack, its very likely Dunkirk would never have happened and UK would have been occupied shortly after France. I suspect that HMG , Royals , RN & as much of the RAF would have moved else where to continue the fight. Not unlike Norwegian and French government , crown and forces did. Didn't the USA have an invasion plan for the UK based on the assumption that the Nazis occupied Great Britain?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel/Seeker Reply   10/18/2005 10:33:06 PM
"Didn't the USA have an invasion plan for the UK based on the assumption that the Nazis occupied Great Britain?" Yeah? What would that be? Consider what a German occupation of England means-I believe that you'd best include Gibraltar, the Azores, Ireland and perhaps Iceland/Greenland as further possibilities. The defense of the European/N. African coast from direct invasion from America is far easier. German subs no longer have to transit the channel and the Bay of Biscay. The strategic implications for a German extension into the Atlantic are astounding.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans   10/18/2005 11:37:40 PM
There was not a specific plan. There were staff studies from 1939 of the problems inherent in various outcomes of the current situation, and these were updated at least annualy. When France collapsed in 1940 the US Joint Chiefs had studies done up for the military implications in a British collapse. When the USSR was invaded there were further studies on the possible outcomes there. The reports or summarys of these studies were sometimes labeled plans rather than estimates. What they ammounted to were preliminary guides for maing stratigic plans if the situation under study actually occured. War Plan Orange is one example. It was based on the assumption of war between Japan & the US. In it was a estimate of Japanese stratigic objectives and militaray capabilities, the US stratigic objectives and a general outline of how the US might counter Japan and what resources it would take. War Plan Black considered the possibility of war with Germany only. War Plan Rainbow considered the problems of a two front war with both. These plans served as a starting point for budget requests, and the basis for guidance from the Chiefs of Staff to their Department heads. They also served as a basis for other staff studies or plans for specific operations. ie: the Command and Staff College war games at Ft Leavenworth. What Seeker is likely refering to is what some refer to as the '200 Division Plan'. There were several estimates made based on the assumption that either Britian or the USSR would be defeated in 1942 or 43. These roughly identified the level of combat power the US would have to produce to replace the lost ally. Another set of estimates, sometimes refered to as the '300 Divsion Plan' assumed the loss of both the USSR and Britan. Again these were studies or estimates. Not specific war plans. Often they were not based on actual practical considerations. For instance S-2s observation on the problems of attacking Germany from across the Atlantic but rather on vaguely defined optimal stratigic goals. For actual war plans one has to look at the documents produced by the army or theatre commanders charged with actually carring out operations. ie: Macaurthurs plans for defending the Phillpines. Or the various plans for invading France. It is not impossible some General was tasked with drawing up a specific plan for the action Seeker mentions, but my first guess it is unlikely.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans   10/19/2005 5:25:06 AM
Your comments about the 200 division army do serve as a point of departure into global war with a German dominated Europe. Given our inability to field even 100 divisions by war's end indicates a radical change in draft criterion. Older, and weaker to be sure. Maybe younger as well. Certainly a new set of HUGE challenges.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans   10/19/2005 8:21:10 PM
My guess here is the 200 or 300 div scenarios considered that the balance of the manpower would come from outside the US. ie: if Britian collapsed then the US would be taking up the slack in equiping surviving British, Canadian, Australian, ect.. units. Plus any Latin American armys press ganged into the fray. As it was the US fielded far more than the eighty odd divisions the of the US Army.. There were six USMC divisions, nine to ten French divisions in 1944-45, two Brazilian divisions sent to Italy, the three or four Chinese divsions that fought under Stilwells command in Burma. Toss in all the lend/lease equipment sent to Brtian, the USSR and China & the US fielded & sustained equipment for somewhere between 110 & 120 divisions, perhaps more.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans/Carl S Reply   10/24/2005 3:46:47 AM
I'm not comfortable that we could have built that army. Supply it, yes. The manpower to staff and provide replacements for an army that large would be daunting. Those in Europe wouldn't be useful, as they'd be POWs, or might as well be under the Nazi heel. Perhaps the Canadians and the rest of the western hemisphere would pick up the cry at that point(two Brazilian divisions in Italy, I didn't know)and help, though I can't imagine a lot of collective enthusiasm to invade a Europe utterly occupied from the shores of America. We need to safely stage somewhere a bit closer, don't you agree?
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans/Carl S Reply   10/24/2005 8:06:28 AM
Oh certainly it would have been a long tough slog. Probably a multistage war like the Brtis waged against Napoleon. A lot would depend on when Brtitan fell. If it were long before Pearl Harbor it is possible the US would have driven Japan from the Pacific before making a serious war on Germany. With the experince of a long distance Pacific war, and the advantage of fighting on a single front more could have been accomplished. In anycase these documents seem to be estimates of requirements, not plans for how it would be done.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    Canada contributed quite a bit as it was...   10/24/2005 10:35:34 PM
At least one corps in Italy and an army in France plus 200 of the escorts doing convoy duties were canadian from the start [100 by the end of 1940 and 200 by the end of 1941].I don't know how many squadrons we had but there were a sizable force. Further prior to Sealow/September 15 date, HMG had already transfered the bulk of the UKs gold and other precious assets to Ottawa and planned to continue the war from Canada in the event of abandoning the UK. Also it should not be underestimated that with a 5000 ship merchant fleet , they could have conducted a 'Dunkirk' on a transatlantic scale, moving the bulk of the RAF and RN to Canada North Africa/Gibralta/Malta along with some of the newer army units. In practice Dunkirk had moved 400k troops with 800 boats/ships across the channel. In theory a 5000 ship merchant fleet could move 6 times as much [~ 2.5 million military/VIP] across the ocean? Bit of a stretch I admit. It would take a long time for he Germans to make good on Hitlers neglect of the KM, so Allied 'island hopping' could have been conducted across Greenland/Iceland/Norway to link up with the Soviets through Finland. Or maybe the French/RN/RAF could continue part of the fight through the soft underbelly of Europe [N Africa/Italy axis]. The war was far from lost, unless the soviets seek a seperate peace before Pearl Harbour attacks? Would the USA continue the fight against Hitler and Japan? Looking at the industry theres a clear path to larger resource base as Germany expands through out Europe [Ex from 20 million tons steel at the start of the war to 30 million tons by 1942]. But this didn't translate into a 50% increase in weapons production capacity due to a retarded war industry [IE germany through speer approached capacity by the end of the war, while the allies had already done so 10 years earlier].Further some attempts to 'franchise' out military production to occupied terriroties failed misserably. For example many French partialy constructed warships were attempted to complete but were always sabotaged before the could be completed. In most cases they gave up tring to complete these warship constructions. I suspect the same thing would happen with UK Ship building. However atleast 1/4 of each occupied fleet would be in dry dock during invasion and theirs a good chance that what sabotage is done is easly over turned and many of the ships made available for Nazi usage...especially if the rate of invasion is unexpectedly fast.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Canada contributed quite a bit as it was...   10/25/2005 1:07:45 AM
The one thing a early defeat of Britian does is shut out the historical development of the atomic bomb. Neils Bohr was still Denmark, and if I remember correctly the Brits had not yet pulled together the other key elements for the project in September 1940. Without the early work done by Britian in the winter of 1940 - 41 the US might not have developed a A bomb at all by 1945 or 46. I doubt the Nazis would have had one either, but B29s nuking Berlin is not in the cards for 1945 in this scenario. Maybe a B36 dropping it in 1949?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy