Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plus the quality of the infantry was vastly inferior. They were younger, far less trained and basically anyone was now conscripted who was exempted as unfit before. I think aside from Hitler himself and maybe the small clique around him nobody believed any of the goals could be achieved.
The 6th and 5th Panzer Armies were solid formations from top to bottom. The supporting forces. 7th and 15th Army, were very thin and poor formations at point in the war.
The Germans really did use the "cream of the crop" in this gamble. One way they made the less experienced soldiers better was pairing them up with veteran NCO's. So, you would have a veteran sergeant leading a mixed squad. This actually proved itself to be pretty effective as far as making a force competent.
Still, the German army was a shell of its former self during the operation. Comparing it back to France in 1940, there were some units that would have been better than anything they fielded then, but many that were of lower quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanhawk
My take is it would have been better to throw that last futile desperate counter-offensive at the Russians, and take as many of them down as possible. Better to be overrun by the western allies than the Russian hordes.
Such an operation was discussed, but it was the view of Hitler and his staff that any such action against the Soviets wouldn't accomplish anything. What forces they could assemble, simply weren't enough to do anything to the Soviets. However, if the Germans were able to succeed in this operation against the west and bring them to the negotiating table, well there might be light at the end of the tunnel afterall. They did this because it was the only operation that had even a remote chance of success.
My take is it would have been better to throw that last futile desperate counter-offensive at the Russians, and take as many of them down as possible. Better to be overrun by the western allies than the Russian hordes.
There were several reasons.
At that point, Hitler and some of the general staff still thought it would be possible to split the alliance between the Western allies and the Soviet Union. The objective of the Ardennes counteroffensive was to split the seam between the British and American armies, drive to Antwerp and seize that port (thus severely limiting the Allies' ability to reinforce and resupply), encircle and destroy several entire Allied armies, and force the Western allies to accept a negotiated peace on the Western Front. If successful, the Germans would then have been able to throw all their resources to the East and (theoretically) halt the Red Army's advance on Berlin. That was the basic objective of what the Germans called "Operation Watch on The Rhine."
The reasons the Germans chose to attack to the west rather than the east were many. First of all, the Western allies were spread thin in that area, and considered ill-prepared and vulnerable. Hitler believed that if they were caught by surprise, in a massive, classic blitzkrieg attack, his armies could split the British and American forces, roll them up, and drive all the way to the coast before an effective counteroffensive could be organized by the politically divided Allies.
Part of the objective was to encircle and destroy General Hodge's American First Army, and Montgomery's entire 21st Army Group (composed of several British and one Canadian army). Hitler knew that the British were basically out of troops, and losses of that magnitude would utterly cripple the British military because they simply could not be replaced. He believed that if he were able to accomplish that, the British would lose their will to continue, and Churchill would be forced to seek a truce. Such a scenario would not have been possible against the Soviet Army in the east. The Russians were not going to stop for any reason.
In addition, the portion of Germany into which the Allies were advancing was the very region that was indispensable to the entire German war effort - the Ruhr Valley, Germany's industrial heartland. The Germans could afford to lose empty farmlands in the east to the advancing Soviets, but they could not afford to lose the area where their weapons were being produced. Hitler believed that if he could force a truce with Britain and the United States, and hurl his remaining military resources against the Soviets, he could slow the Russians down long enough to field more advanced weapons like jet aircraft and more sophisticated ballistic missiles which he still thought could turn the tide of the war in the East. In order to accomplish that, he needed to do everything possible to keep the Western allies on the western side of the Rhine.
Had Hitler been willing (or for that matter, able) to accept the inevitability of defeat, attacking to the east might have made more strategic sense. Certainly Germany would have fared much better in the postwar years had the Americans and British (rather than the Russians) taken Berlin and most of Germany with it. But to a desperate madman who still believed it was possible to win the war, the Ardennes offensive was probably the only thing that still seemed to make sense.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 12-23-2014 at 01:12 AM..
I dont believe in the fall of France the Germans had anywhere near 3 million troops. They attacked the USSR with 3 million troops. From what I have read the allies did not see any buildup and thats one reason the area was weakly defended. On the broad front they could not keep every area strong. They say before the battle ended over 1 million fought in it as about 610,000 Americans and about 500,000 Germans took part. I do know in early December 1944 the US had about 2.6 million troops in the northern European theater with about 2 million in France and 600,000 in England which is when the Germans attacked. And at that time about 1.4 million US troops were combat troops. Not sure on exact British figures at that time but by around March 1945 the British and Canadians had about 1 million troops in France and about 500,000 were combat troops. By March the US peaked with just over 3 million troops in the Nothern European theater with about 1.6 million were combat troops (field army).
I have stats that the Gemans had 3.4 million in their field army (combat troops) around early Oct 1944 with 2 million on the eastern front and about 1.4 million on the western front. The most likely had more troops there but thats how many were combat troops. And of their 1.4 million on the western front it was more like a million or a little less that were really effective combat troops on the western front. Ron
"Germany had mobilised 4,200,000 men of the Heer, 1,000,000 of the Luftwaffe, 180,000 of the Kriegsmarine, and 100,000 of the Waffen-SS. When consideration is made for those in Poland, Denmark and Norway, the Army had 3,000,000 men available for the offensive on 10 May 1940.[57] These manpower reserves were formed into 157 divisions. Of these, 135 were earmarked for the offensive, including 42 reserve divisions.[58]"
So it appears that the 3 million figure is accurate. Germany had about 4.2 million troops total in May, 1940, of which 3.3 million troops (141 divisions) were in Western Europe, going against about 3.3 million Allied troops in France (144 divisions).
You are correct that Germany invaded the U.S.S.R. with 3 million troops as well, but they were aided by an additional 2 million Axis troops from other countries. The total invasion force for the U.S.S.R. was about 5 million.
In France, the area was weakly defended (The Ardennes) because French military planners mistakenly presumed it was a natural barrier to large armies and tanks. It had nothing to do with not seeing any buildup. The French bigwigs believed that the main attack would come further north. The French were in fact warned of the buildup ahead of time, but dismissed the reports as they believed it was a diversion. By the time they realized the magnitude of the threat, it was to late. The bulk of French/Allied forces had already advanced too far northeast into Belgium to change course and were already heavily engaged against German Army Group B in Belgium.
Even if the French had heeded the early warnings of German troop buildups in the Ardennes sector, it is unlikely the outcome would have been much different. The French would have had to abandon their entire Dyle Plan and move entire armies further south to try and stop the advancing Panzer divisions. The Germans also had total air superior over the sector, so the French likely would have suffered immensely higher casualties than what actually occurred. Then Army Group B would have advanced freely into Northern France. The French/Allied plan was doomed from the start.
"Germany had mobilised 4,200,000 men of the Heer, 1,000,000 of the Luftwaffe, 180,000 of the Kriegsmarine, and 100,000 of the Waffen-SS. When consideration is made for those in Poland, Denmark and Norway, the Army had 3,000,000 men available for the offensive on 10 May 1940.[57] These manpower reserves were formed into 157 divisions. Of these, 135 were earmarked for the offensive, including 42 reserve divisions.[58]"
So it appears that the 3 million figure is accurate. Germany had about 4.2 million troops total in May, 1940, of which 3.3 million troops (141 divisions) were in Western Europe, going against about 3.3 million Allied troops in France (144 divisions).
You are correct that Germany invaded the U.S.S.R. with 3 million troops as well, but they were aided by an additional 2 million Axis troops from other countries. The total invasion force for the U.S.S.R. was about 5 million.
In France, the area was weakly defended (The Ardennes) because French military planners mistakenly presumed it was a natural barrier to large armies and tanks. It had nothing to do with not seeing any buildup. The French bigwigs believed that the main attack would come further north. The French were in fact warned of the buildup ahead of time, but dismissed the reports as they believed it was a diversion. By the time they realized the magnitude of the threat, it was to late. The bulk of French/Allied forces had already advanced too far northeast into Belgium to change course and were already heavily engaged against German Army Group B in Belgium.
Even if the French had heeded the early warnings of German troop buildups in the Ardennes sector, it is unlikely the outcome would have been much different. The French would have had to abandon their entire Dyle Plan and move entire armies further south to try and stop the advancing Panzer divisions. The Germans also had total air superior over the sector, so the French likely would have suffered immensely higher casualties than what actually occurred. Then Army Group B would have advanced freely into Northern France. The French/Allied plan was doomed from the start.
Those numbers are alot higher then what I have read but then again you get into combat troops and service troops. A few of my books state the battle of France that Germany used 95 divisions and they had 42 in reserve as it also says 2.2 million German troops were used. I have also never heard of 2 million German allied troops were with the Germans in atacking the USSR. But then again the numbers may or may not include service troops and air force troops. I am not trying disagree with you I am just stateing I have not read of that many troops being used.
Now in the battle of France if you take out 1,000,000 Luftwaffe troops and 280,000 of the German Navy and Waffen SS troops it does come to 2,920,000 troops which is more of the number I have read even though its still more as that may still include service troops. I mean right there you can have one source say 4.2 million and another source say 2.9 million for the battle of France and who knows how many actually fought in the battle. I have always read about 2 million German troops were used in the Battle of France and 3 million German troops were used in the atack on the USSR. But that dont mean I am right as I am only pointing out numbers I have read over the years. But I know you check your resources very well.
Its kinda like numbers that could be posted for the battle of the Buldge. We can post the total number of troops fighting in France at that time or post only the troops involved in the battle or how many fought in the battle before it ended. It can be very confusing if you dont understand it. I dont know the real number of allied troops on the western front in January 1945 but I do know by about March 1945 the allies had around 4.5 million troops in the western European theater and this is what they were:
USA - just over 3 million
UK and Canada - around 1 million
France and other allies - 500,000
But thats total troops which includes service troops and air force troops. The combat troops (field army) was about 2.5 million with:
USA - 1.7 million
UK and Canada - 500,000
France and other allies - 300,000
The numbers can be confusing thats for sure.
I have read stats that Germany atacked the USSR with 148 divisions and 14 Romanian , 22 Finnish , 3 Italian and 1 Slovakain. Thats 40 German allied divisions which is nowhere near 2 million troops to aid the Germans so I have to wonder where some of these numbers come from. I also know the USA adds alot of combat troops to there divisions and you can see it in the numbers. Most stats state the USA had about 2.1 million combat troops overseas which was 89 army divisions. And it states that 1.2 million are division combat troops and 900,000 are non divisional combat troops. Yet another book about the USSR states in January 1945 they had 5.6 million combat troops which was about 530 divisions. Thats not even 10,000 troops per division but the USA with 89 dividons and 2.1 million combat troops comes to about 23,000 troops per division. So myself I try to research the numbers and see just what is accurate and whats not.
So whatever the real number of German troops used in 1940 how many actually fought in the ardennes ? That I dont know but I do know the stats say about 610,000 US combat troops fought in the Battle of the Buldge and b y the time it ended Germany used about 500,000 combat troops. I will also say the tanks used in the Buldge in late 1944 were much bigger and better with larger guns then what was used in the 1940 battle. Ron
Bastogne was relieved yesterday 70 years ago. Battle of the Bulge is mostly over (the German attack) and the initiative moves over to the Allied. The gamble filed miserably, as could be expected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
German tunks in the Battle
