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
Seeker    RE:Canada contributed quite a bit as it was...   10/25/2005 1:23:07 AM
"During the Nazi occupation of Denmark in World War II, Bohr escaped to Sweden and spent the last two years of the war in England and America, where he became associated with the Atomic Energy Project." link So likely he would still go to Sweden and may well end up in the USA later in the war? What early work are you refering to?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Canada contributed quite a bit as it was...   10/25/2005 1:49:26 AM
Interesting comments by seeker. However, I presume that with the defeat of Great Britain, the Germans would logically extend through Spain (little point in Franco remaining neutral at that point)to Gibraltar, closing the western entrance to the Med, as well as occupy Malta and the Suez Canal. Still existing British/Commonwealth forces would exit rapidly without resupply from England, or they collectively would not be long for this world. Moreover, any rational German strategist should extend their defenses as far into the Atlantic as possible, to include the G.I.U.K. line and the Azores. Again, that shuts down any notion of lend-lease. Meanwhile that excellent merchant fleet had best sail for England, pick those lads up, and return home post-haste. Raeder and Doenitz would be licking their chops at 5000 merchant ships at sea in 1940-41. We'd not perfected convoy techniques as yet, and the Germans were at their zenith in submarine warfare. Talk about your target rich environment
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    Just a few thoughts.   10/25/2005 10:02:53 PM
When the germans siezed Norway the bulk of the Nowegian merchant fleet [~1000 merchant ships] escaped and defected to the UK in a heart beat, so its likely the bulk of the RA would escape [except for those in drydock]. While I can see Spain joining the Axis side I'm not sure if Gibralta would automatically fall. Post Sealowee German fleet would be quite small and the RN/UK could still operate out of colonial ports and control the rest of the Med through Malta the Suez and N Africa. With reguard to the KM fleet, it was in an appauling state in WW-II due to Hitlers neglect. When you look at the build up to WW-I [just 20 years before], the very same [presumable as efficent] german warship industry had laid down, built and commisioned in the 5 years upto 1914, no less than 8 x 25,000 ton battleships/ battlecrusiers and 5 x 28-31,000 tons battleships each armed with 8-10 x 11"-12" guns. In total between 1909-1914 they produced... 13 x Battleship/Battlecruisers 6 x light cruisers 67 x Torpedoboats [like DE/corvettes] 58 x Uboats [mostly small] This was all between 1909-1914 , which is the same time period as 1935-1940 [considered the rearmament phase]. In terms of tonnage WW-I was 6% warship tonnage per year of total steel production. However the heavy industries of the period [prior to the modern American massproduction methods] were really inefficent. Its estimated that for every 100,000 tons of steel allocated , you got maybe 10-15,000 tons of warships. By the late 1930s, the KM was only recieving warship tonnage 3% of total annual steel production, reflecting the much lower priority. To make matters worse, the 1930s German industrial efficency was about the same as WW-I! [after Speers reforms in 1943/44, this would double to ~ 30% efficency from 15% , but that was by mass producing small UBoats ]. Between 1935 and 1940 they had built only... 3 x Battleships 2 x Heavy Cruisers 66 x Destroyers, Torpedoboats & Mine sweepers 60 x Uboats ~135 x smaller boats {Rboot/Sboot} So you can see that while the small boat/Escort production was about the same, the capital ship production was drop in the bucket compared to WW-I. The point of this is that the Historical KM at best was 1/5 the size of the RN when treaty obligations allowed them to be 35% of the RN in size. Sealowee was only remotely possible because 1/2 the RN fleet would be spread around the globe guarding colonies, while the other half would have to constantly rotate, to keep some ships on station at all times. This left maybe 1/5 RN ships at sea around the UK at any given time, with weeks before reinforcements could arrive. KM by contrast, could surge their entire surface fleet [as they did in Norway], so they could be fighting on near even terms. Further Admiral Raeder ruthlessly begun a conversion program to bring every available civilian ship into Auxilliar force. By mid 1940 this programe added... 200 out of 500 Whalers/trawlers, converted into 800 ton gun boats with 88mm guns , light flak guns, hydrophones and Depth charges. In short coastal waters like the Channel, they could fill a corvette role, ecorting the invasion fleet. 25 out of 50 small merchants into armored mineclearers 'pathfinders' with 4" guns, light flak and a special device that exploded magnetic mines at some distance.Could clear a path through minefields for follow on invasion fleet and also provide some escorting functions. 1200 barges converted to landing craft of which 1/6th were powered with surplus Luftwaffe engines and armed with light flak. The rest were to be towed by upto a 1000 steamers/ferries/Tugboats, which could be a problem if waters are rough [as in the fall of 1940]. Large landing craft carry heavy weapons [tanks artillery and supplies]& crews, while steamers/ferries carry troops. ~ 1000 Fishing boats & fast motorboats to insert elite vanguard forces and provide basic scouting/pilot to follow on invasion fleet. Within a year ,all these conversion programs would be completed. Such a auxilliary fleet would be of little value in the open ocean fighting for months. But in the channel , given the short time and distance involved , they would be adequate to the task . More important their conversion would not be detected by RN and thus not countered in time. Sealowee ,would have lost the germans between 1/4 and 1/2 their surface fleet [Norway lost 1/3 of what was sent] . While captured RN Warships might be able to make good some of these loses,it takes 3 years to build a capital ship. So it would be many years before the KM could seriously challenge the USN plus left over RN fleets in the N Atlantic. Germanies best strategy then might be massive UBoat fleet and maritime bomber force and hope they can mass produce enough Guided torps and ASMs to sink enough Allied warships to deter them.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Just a few thoughts./S-2 reply   10/26/2005 6:10:11 AM
Superb post. It appears to acknowledge the possibility of a German conquest of England. As for colonial naval bases in N. Africa, Alexandria and Malta are the only bases which I can think of that weren't Vichy controlled. How would those bases be resupplied, and from where? Gibraltar is done, if Spain accedes to German access. Allied bases, therefore, in Egypt would be vulnerable to land attack, while Malta was always fortunate that the Germans instead chose Crete for an airborne invasion. German airborne divisions could assault Iceland out of Ireland, with gebirgsjager divisions flown in behind them, as necessary (Nathan Bedford Forrest-"Gittin' there fustest, with the mostest"). Conquest of Iceland, with the subsequent positioning of German aircraft closes the G.I.U.K line. This is essentially the post-war Soviet plan for the conquest of Europe from Clancy's "Red Storm Rising". While fictional, and placed forty years into the future, it would have been equally valid in 1940-41. It would have taken the Germans at least a decade of uninterrupted peace to build a Navy to contest the U.S. Navy in the Atlantic with offensive operations, and I can't honestly imagine it. I do imagine them effectively preventing us making a forced entry into the continent from our shores. Damned hard, in my estimation.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Just a few thoughts./S-2 reply   10/26/2005 7:48:48 AM
Yes, extremely hard. Conversely the Japanese were better prepared for such a ocean war & they were defeated as well. Despite the skill of Rader & Doneitz the Nazi state was lacking in depth & breadth of ability to fight a naval war. Even if the projectd 'Z' Plan were completed by 1946 it would have floated just one aircraft carrier and four modern battleships. The US Atlantic fleet of 1944 was enough to handle that. vs the victorious Pacific fleet it would have been a speed bump. The U boat fleet was significant in 1940, but not yet capable of controling the Atlantic. Were Britian to fall in 1940 and the US focused on the Pacific there would have been little incentive to develop the U Boat fleet of 1942. The demands of was vs the USSR would have been a strong competitor for a fleet that was unproven & apparently unecessary. An adjunct tot his is the realitive effectivenss of the Luftwaffe at a naval war. As with the Kriegsmairne a early defeat of Britian removes the incentive to learn anything about an ocean war. O to develop effective tools for fighting it. Again the Japanese had good weapons and doctrine for this, forcing the US to develop far better. The end result for one or two German corps in Iceland would be much the same as for the Japanese armys in the Phillpines, Indonesia, or Rabul. That is isolated and starving. Once the area for the air and naval bases in Iceland were seized the remaining Nazi holdouts would be reduced to raids & gathering Eidelweiss. The other approach to Europe is across the central Atlantic through Africa. Another tough fight.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Just a few thoughts./S-2 reply   10/26/2005 10:49:19 AM
It's a neat thread. We've reached the point now of peering into the minds of the German decision maker(s). I doubt Adolf would have done what was necessary to fully defend the west. I absolutely concur that there's no way he'd ever build a fleet to contest our eastern shores. Iceland, though, might be the key. The only point of those ground troops would be to defend airfields around Reyjavik. German forces there, heavy enough to defend, but light enough to supply by air from Ireland might somewhat mitigate edelweiss gathering. I know little about sustaining an airforce, much less 1-3 divisions on the ground in W.W.II. Clearly, Goering couldn't sustain Stalingrad, though operational conditions were very different. If successful though, it'd be a long time in hell before allied forces would be landing on French/Irish/English beaches.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Just a few thoughts....   10/26/2005 3:18:29 PM
BTW, at the time of the Fall of France, the USN had over 150 submarines in service versus the 59 (?) of the KM. Not to mention it had 6 fleet carriers in service, 16 battleships, 18 heavy cruisers, 21 light cruisers and 77 destroyers (excluding the 4 stack flush deckers)in service....and a lot more stuff on the ways....don't know if the KM would put a dent in that.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Just a few thoughts....   10/26/2005 10:02:41 PM
The fleet you describe was in 1940. Like I wrote earlier the German Z Plan projected for 1946 looks patheic compared to the US fleet built in 1944. Heres a few other related questions: With Britian KOd, what are the odds of the Red Army retaining a viable enclave in Europe in 1941? How much faster would the US be able to defeat Japan wothout the distraction of fighting Germany simlutaneously? Would Germany still declare war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor if Britian were occupied? With Britian KOd in 1940 Churchills lunatic idea of an atomic bomb would have beenstill born. Would the US have started a A bomb program itself? Did Germany have a viable A bomb program, or would it have gone nowhere after 1945?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Just a few thoughts..../S-2 Reply   10/27/2005 12:36:32 AM
"With Britian KOd, what are the odds of the Red Army retaining a viable enclave in Europe in 1941?" Carl, that's been my central theme in this, and other threads on this board. The Soviet Union, in my estimation was dead meat the moment that England had fallen. That is why I'd argue that the Battle of Britain, to paraphase Churchill, may have been "the WORLD's finest hour". While great operational leaders abounded in Germany, there was an absolute lack of top notch strategic analysis in the leadership. Numerous variants could be posed, to include the N. African discussions included here, but England had to be defeated. No two ways around it, in retrospect. BTW, as you know, I'm sure, those are five great threads in their own right. Good job.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Just a few thoughts..../S-2 Reply   10/27/2005 8:17:08 PM
Ok, so the Red Army is the walking dead, leaving some sort of reesidue in Siberian exile. The Nationalist Chinese had already become a nonentity. Maos little state would likely survive through to the defeat of Japan, but then what else could it do? That would leave India. With British control near vanishing would India have enough internal polotocal cohesiveness to choose sides. Or would it be paralysed by interrnal struggles for power.
 
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