"Armchair" General - Change a Battle

If we assume the entire USAF fleet of C-5s and C-17 becomes available to the Germans, then everything suddenly becomes possible...



Can anyone with photoshop abilities stick a Balkenkreuz nthis for me, please? Oh, and add a couple of Sidewinders under the wings to take care of those Malta Spitfires, now that you are at it.

 

What about some of these for Göring to bomb those bloody tank factories in Detroit?



Or some Thunderbolt IIs to chase the damned British all the way down to India…

I guess that would work…

 

I see, a bit negative this morn aren't we? Stalingrad airlift failure was down to weather. How bout Tunisia then? How did they get hardware across for that show?

Germans were amateurs at logistics & engineering, Hmm do I smell bias? The Germans were screwed going anywhere without an alreadt existing ifrastructure of roads & railroads. They did push Brits back 1500 miles across the desert, so That argument is bs. they somehow got their divisions resupplied for all that distance without a road & rail infrastructure. Quite a feat I should say.

 

No, it failed because the Luftwaffe did not have the capacity to get the necessary 500 tons of supplies per day the VI Army needed to survive, let alone keep fighting.

Planes couldn't carry enough load, airfields were in awful state and Soviet AA fire and fighters plus hard winter conditions made the airlift flights almost suicidal.

Things got even worse when operation 'Little Saturn' captured vital airfields with their entire aircrews, staffs and manteinance equippment…

The best day of the airbridge only 110 tons of supplies were flown in, 1/5 of the minimal! And it was only one day. 500 transport aircraft and hundred of experienced pilots and air crews were lost.

It was not the weather. It was the overrating of the Luftwaffe and its staffs' incapacity to get things done right. And of course, the Iváns did quite an effort to screw this too.

Yes, and they're yours. I smell Sir Basil Liddel-Hart and some German generals' memoirs which only favour Herr Goebbels' creations…

And what about considering these circumstances first, before making any conclusions on Rommel's master campaigns.

In 1941:

</font>

• General Wavell is ordered by Churchill to transferr reinforcements to Greece, Palestine and Sudan.</font>
• British shipping losses in the Atlantic increase.</font>
• Malta is isolated by the Luftwaffe and British communications in the central Mediterranean are cut off, whilst the Axis' are seccured, allowing reinforcements to reach North Africa.</font>
• The British VIII Army in Libya is exhausted and facing a logistical crisis just after a six-month campaign and a persuit of 1,500 km in the desert, in which it took 200.000 prisoners.</font>
• In the first days of Rommel's offensive, British leadership is neutralised by the capture of the VIII Army staff, including its commander, lieutenant general Sir Richard O'Connor.</font>

In 1942:

</font>

• British units are exhausted and face a logistical crisis after a three-month campaign and a 1,500 km advance.</font>
• Malta is again isolated by the Luftwaffe and British communications are severely affected, whilst the Axis transferr reinforcements and supplies.</font>
• British shipping losses in the Atlantic increase dangerously.</font>
• Several divisions are rapidly withdrawn from North Africa to face the Japanese threat on Australia, Hong-Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Burma and India.</font>

In such strategic position, a master tactician like Rommel could achieve fantastic victories. But once he faced a set-piece battle in which logistics, careful planning and all-arms close-support are the vital elements, he just got a bloody nose, twice.

 

Chromeboomerang,

I would be interested if you have a source for the MKIV airlift. Or even a date? Which year? What month/s?

I will check Colonel Kriebels account of the Crusader battles. It has a chapter or two that cover supply...

As for Stalingrad, well if they had all the Ju-52s they lost in NOrway, Holland, Crete and over the MEd then maybe it might have helped, but I doubt it...

 

The Germans might have done better at Stalingrad in the airlift (as well as in parachute drops and subsequent airlifts) if:
1. They had a portable homing beacon like the Allied Rebecca - Eureka system.
2. Chosen early on (say mid 39) to drop the Ju 52 as the standard transport, replacing it with something more modern.
and
2. Had devised better drop cannisters.

A good part of the reason the airlift at Stalingrad failed was weather related. But, another problem was loading and unloading supplies. Landing and unloading took longer. An efficent system of air drops that arrived accurately on target at the receiving end meant more drops per day and more supplies delivered. By comparison, this is a major reason the US Bastogne drops succeeded in delivering ample supplies to troops there dispite the weather.

 

My bias; German generals memoirs that only favors Goebbels creations? That is a very low grade thing to say. It would appear that having an adult civil conversation is a bit above your maturity level.

 

In Tunisa they got virtually all of their equipment there by sea.
As far as my earlier statement that the Germans were "idiots" (I did not use the word amatuers) that was a bit of hyperbole. The Germans were just not very good compared to the Western Allies at logistics.
This is why Rommel was starved for supplies at Alamein in large part while the British managed to supply their forces at the end of a long supply line much more readily. I might add that the US and British quickly moved to clear and restore port serivces along the African coast as they advanced too. In the US case many of the ports would have been declared "unusable" by German standards within the Vichy French zone. Most of the major ones were clogged with block ships, had piers and quays blown up etc. The US cleared most of these within a month or two and put them back in full serivce.
Simply convoying supplies to a distant front using trucks is hardly "quite a feat." Every major combatant did it at one point or another. How did Rommel's efforts compare to the US "Red Balls" in France? A shadow of the effectiveness of that system would be a reasonable answer.
Could the Germans have produced roads like the Ledo (Burma) or the Alcan (Alaska Highway)? I severely doubt it. And, they certainly could not have built a road like the Alcan using only about 6000 men in roughly a year.
The Germans were poor logisticians. It is not bias but simply fact.

 

Red Baron; Well I do remember the quote, & the #'s of 50 MK 4,s. Unfortunately this was yrs ago that I read it. It was in reference to the time period of 42 when Rommel was runnin out of supply. It would've had to have been when the MK 4 just came out if that helps. Let me know if you find anything as I am now interested as well with all the weight load data of transport aircraft being mentioned here. It is possible that the data was in error. I cannot vouch for the source because as I stated, I don't recall the exact place I read it.

It does raise an interesting engineering logistics question. As I mentioned, these tanks could be dissaembled, motor, hull, tracks etc. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know whether it could be done ot not. Find it puzzling that others enjoy ridiculing such things before any serious contemplation or study of the question is done.

 

Reading on some German veteran experiences from Stalingrad I found a year ago a simple way to stop the cargo flights coming and going. According to this the Russians had a couple of Il-2 bombers (?) circling around the air fields and every time someone tried to land they dropped bombs and either the plane exploded or the wheels went broke or nobody dared to unload the planes while bombs were falling if they tried. Sounds rather efficient to me. Flak was not mentioned but I could guess the Germans could not fire as much as they wanted to as the reserves were low. Maybe could not shoot at all even if they should have.

 

In Stalingrad by Anthony Beevors he puts the failure of the air lift squarely on Goering. Goering was trying to gain some influence with Hitler and committed to being able to carry out the Airlift, without consulting the Luftwaffe High command! Once he committed to this with Adolf he had to deliver, when he didn't he blamed the managment of the airlift on the Luftwaffe high command!

 

But it wasn't just Göring. Colonel general Hans Jeschonnek, chief of staff of the OKL told Hitler that it could be done.

Please, avoid name calling and other stuff. The generals' memoirs portray the great Blitzkrieg campaigns, with their Panzer and motorised divisions, the great advances and the great victories. Goebbel's German 'super-soldier' is there. Where did the apawling casualties of the Bulge or 'Bagration' go? Where did the low standard of motorisation go? Where's the incompetence of the General Staff? Where are the horrible attrocities in the east?

 

As I recall there was only one usable field in Stalingrad. & it weather was so bad, it was often unreachable. Pilots had to fly through blizzards & had a hard time finding the field. In Africa, proximity fields could've been used & weather not a limiting factor. Tunisia proves they could get stuff across, even in 43 with east front running full bore. With peace in east, supplies, personnel & transport craft would naturally be sent to Africa.

Please refrain from making ugly unrelated accusations. Where are the atrocities in the east, Goebbels super soldier is there. Where are the appalling casualties of the bulge or bagration go?

None of what you have mentioned has "anything" to do with what was being discussed, which was sealing off west end of med & transportation of supplies across to Africa. To say you are " way out of line" is an understatment to say the least.

 

Sorry to go back to the MKIV air thingy but found a few bits from Kriebel (COS 15th Pnz Div)...

Panzer IV Strength (From DAK Records)

June 11th 1942 - 14 (six were 'specials' the F2)

By August 30th strengths were 37 and 27 'Specials'.

"German Air Transport units flew across to North Africa such supplies as were most urgently needed - ammunition and spare parts."

"Steps taken to supply by air proved costly from the outset."

In general the picture he paints of the supply by air is a rather poor one. He constantly refers to 'little space' and only 'urgent items'. He also makes reference to the heavy losses borne by the supply crews.

I can only find reference to supply of MkIV and MKIIIs coming in by ship. From what I have found it seems that the Gigants were used for supply loads and 88mm guns and occasionally infantry.

I aint saying you are wrong Chrome but I cant find anything to back it up and I dont believe a German aircraft could carry that amount. I also dont see the point in spiltting up a tank into pieces for transport. Its just not practical. Plus the hull weight would preclude its transport by air. You would also then have to gather the component parts together and re-build the tank. Dont really work for me.

Perhaps the author of the work you read got it wrong or maybe was refering to MKIV spares???

RED

 

You could be right. It was as I recall a gift to Rommel for his birthday. That should help regarding dates.

 

Nother thing worth considering is with a peace agrmt in east, Luftwaffe could be used in an umbrella fashion, ( like the channel dash ), to protect shipping. & also anti submarine duty. This should make a significant difference in supply situation. Remember what happened to Brit shipping around Greece.

 

The british had spies in Italy that would tell them when the good stuff was crossing (88's tanks ect.)
so they where in trouble either way unless gaining Naval supremacy.

 

Understand spy point, but air supremacy is arguably more important than naval supremacy as demonstrated in Greek campaign. Many destroyers & cruisers were lost there. Theoretically, with air supremacy, british ships would be sunk while attempting to attack transports. British air power would also have to be weighed in.

2 questions remain. # 1 which branch of Brit forces did most sinkings of supply convoys, air or navy. # 2, if Luftwaffe were brought in from east, would it be large enough to keep Brit air force at bay?

 

Something I read a while ago:

Torpedo Leader on Malta
by Authors: Patrick Gibbs

The interesting thing about the convoy war is that according to Mr Gibbs´ book there might not have been any need for the Enigma information here ( he doesn´t say so but according to how they found the ships I don´t think they used or needed any of that info ). And honestly it sounds so simple that I think it probably was so.

1. The reconnaissance Spitfires checked the local harbours every day and they knew exactly when the boats were ready to go to Africa. And where the axis fighter planes were.

2. The axis convoys used the same route every time so it was easy to figure the place where to attack, and secondly when to leave for the attack ( dusk attack ). Naturally there was a recon plane some time before the torpedo planes so they would be informed of any delays of the convoy etc.

3. During the early part of war there were not many Beauforts or Beaufighters but loadsa German planes so it was not that easy to sink axis convoy ships. But as war went on the balance changed and more planes were ready for torpedo attacks. As well as Malta became more peaceful the torpedo planes were transferred to Malta instead of Egypt, the latter of which is quite far away from the Southern Italy harbours.

On the convoy system:

" Although we were continually developing new tactics and changing our positions of attack, the enemy showed a curious reluctance to alter either routing or the defences of the ships, a weakness of which we gratefully took every possible adavantage."

The merchant vessels weren´t though unprotected:

There were often several destroyers and even fighters flying over them.

The beaufighters were contacting the fighters while the beauforts would attack the merchant vessels. Some of the Beauforts had bombs which were dropped near the phase when the torpedoes were dropped so the flak would have to divert its fire ( to planes above and over the sea ) and the torpedo planes would not get all the fire at its most critical moment. Later on the Beaufighters attacked the flak as mostly the fighter escort was not so heavy except for more important cargo.

http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000352

 

Sure, the tanks could theoretically be disassembled in Sicily and reassembled in Africa, although that would require setting up major workshops on both ends of the trip. Could the PzIV factory disrupt production enough to produce a batch for Afrika in kit form? I suppose no one would fall for that.

This would require some heavy logistical work, but what the heck, a What-If is a What-If and one can even postulate that Rommel had repented his ways and went to Monte Cassino, there to be killed in the massive Allied bombing. Or Goering taking the same route as Hess and flying to Scotland (in a wide berth plane!)

now, back on track, we can break down a PzIV major components into (guesstimate numbers for now but I can refine this later):

a) turret = 5 tons
b) hull = 14 tons
c) tracks = 2 tons
d) engine = 2 tons

total 23 tons

There would be other elements you could take out, like wheels, transmission etc, say deduct 2 tons from the hull weight.

So the tracks and engine are manageable, the turet too at a pinch, but the hull seems out of the question. Per the list of German transport planes I published before, nothing extant to carry this kind of load. A Bv 222 Zwilling, perhaps?

But what the heck are we talking about? Air transportation is very very inefficient, surface is much better. A lousy 5,000 ton tramp could easily carry 100 Panzers! That's what they are good at! Airplanes are for small bulk, lightweight, urgent loads, not for bulk carriage.

Of course then you need a clear, unobstructed harbour with enough draught beneath the hull, plus a sound quay provided with workable 30ton rated unloading cranes. This would be a difficult combination of requirements in Africa...

[ 03. September 2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]