Guderian suggestion concerning Couland and the Ardennes

Its coming up October 1944, and the war is reaching its end. But Heinz Guderian made a suggestion to Hitler, and I'm sure it could of pulled off.

Soldiers are trapped in the Kurland, get them transported back to Germany, escorted hevaily by the Kriegsmarine they should have no problem.

The SS panzer troops intend for Operation Watch on the Rhine are called back. Both armies are combined, you have a strong, well equipped, (though not on fuel, so bare that in mind) army. Many of which are SS and armed to the teeth with ammo. Morale high. This massive force, combined with some Volksturm units is formed sercetly infront of Berlin.

Around Febuary 1945 the Russians halted there advance due to severe supply problems once again. Tank casualties are high and need replacing, and this will take awhile. Russian infantry are high in morale, but are generally exhusted, lacking ammo and not expected a counter attack.

Formed in Corps, they can launch muitply encirclements, cause complete surprise, capture prisoners and what supplies they have, take them back into Germany to be massarced or put into slaverly.

Assuming that happens, what then?

 

First of all, Schmidt, welcome to the forums! I hope to see many posts from you and that you enjoy yourself here.

Well, ASSUMING that it happened (which I doubt), it would only have lenghtened the war for a few months. Maybe new weapons could have been used such as the new U-boats, etc. and some severe damage could have been made to the Allies. However, they also had new weapons ready for action, remember the awesome Soviet tank IS-III... But this are tactics... in the strategic level Germany didn't have men reserves to go on with the fighting, no fuel, no raw materials... the war was absolutely lost by early 1944, don't even mention the 2nd half of 1944. OK, new planes and new amazing tanks, U-boats, flying bombs, hand guns, etc. Which materials are you going to use to build them? Who are going to build them?
With what are the soldiers, civilians and workers be fed? With what are those U-boats and planes to work (fuel)? Where are you going to build them (destroyed factories)? And much more important: who is going to MAN them? Remember that by the 2nd half of 1944 Germany is fighting against the USA and the USSR, fully equipped, fully manned and fully strenghtened. It's IMPOSSIBLE to win the war then. The only thing you can is to delay the cruel end provoking more death and suffering...

 

The germans will severly weaken the Eastern Front and cause quite a stir. Stalin, in his angry may launch a full on assault before its fully ready and have facing it a highly equipped SS army.

By 1944 and even up to 1945 the TODT was racking in quite a fair amount. Bare in mind that the Ruhr hadn't been captured, the germans were producing quite a high figure. Many prisoners were still under the Reich's shackles.

With no Ardennes offensive the Allies will move quicker and secure Berlin before the Russians. Could go even way, Germans will surrendar to the Allies and the Allies will tell the Russians to stay away from Germany. Alot of would-be prisoners are saved, and the Soviet's would have no iron curtain.

 

Schmidt: do you know that Hitler and his generals perfectly knew that the real menace came from the East and that they needed to achieve some victory... However, even Hitler knew that such a victory was impossible in the East because "the Red Army is too strong now"* That is why they looked for the weakest sector of the 'unexperienced' Americans...

And the Germans were not producing high ammounts of weaponry by late 1944... the Allied bombardement had damaged very severely all the factories at the Ruhr...

And I think you are too OVER rating Waffen SS troops. They weren't fully armed and they were a miserable force compared to the German Army. The Waffen SS was only 25% of the Wehrmacht and 80% of its units were shameful. Divisions with the size of a regiment... Even the excellent divisions were not fully strenghtened. They would have received equipment as they did in September-November 1944 and would have worked very nicely without the Ardennes offensive. But even fully equipped they were not rival for the Western Allies and MUCH LESS for the mighty Red Army of 1944.

*Kershaw, Ian, "Hitler 1936-1945", 2001.

 

Remember the Ardennes SS force, they will heavily equipped and ready. Move them, bundle them in one force and your hitting one section of the Russian line, not along the whole front. Your delaying the Russian attack, like Manstein did at Kharvok, outnumbered 7:1, but they still advanced a fair distance. Trust, I read somewhere that the munitions were coming in quite steady. Even in Berlin they were building King Tigers.

 

First, I forgot to mention that this:

was NOT possible because Churchill, Stalin and Roosvelt had already agreed about the terms of the war. And the real German tries of breaking the alliance didn't work. It wasn't going to work. Churchill and Roosvelt wanted all but an alliance with Germany.

Again. OVER rating the bloody Waffen SS. If you remember right there was VI SS Panzer Army, V Panzer Army and VII Army. Two Armies composed of German Army's regular troops against one of SS troops. Maybe they were fully equipped and had a very considerable force, but they couldn't even handle with the weak 101st airborne division with their King Tigers and Panthers...

But Von Manstein is Von Manstein and there was not such an advantage in Khárkov. The Russians were very weakened and had over extended supply lines. And you cannot compare German troops from early 1943 to German troops of late 1944...

This is true, but again. Remember? Allied bombing, lack of fuel, lack of raw materials, lack of experienced crews... 600 King Tigers... 20.000 T-34/85 and IS-II plus a lot of Shermans the other way...

 

This is all true. I've always though that the Germans were in a bad situian. But, considering the amount of troops against them, lack of fuel, and bad decision of a prematurely old Hitler, why did it take the allies and soviets so long too win the war? I know I haven't got exact stats here, but to me the Germans holding out as long as they did was a considerably feat.

 

Because of the self determination of the individual German soldier, because of the unity of its people and the professionalism of its leadership, and we must not forget about German superiority and tactics and equippment. But all this is TACTICS. STRATEGY was absolutely against the Germans.

 

Lol is just us two awake. If I get the time, (which should be no problem) I'll try to look into this abit more. See if I can get some decent stats.

But, my theory is this: Up untill May 1944 and beyold, I believe the Germans had a fair chance of winning.

 

I don't think so either Herr Schmidt. And something else caught my attention.

First it is October 1944 - afer the succesfull D-Day invasion of Normandy - and now it is already Mai 1944.

If they could have repelled the American-Brittish-Canadian invasion on 6 June, then they could deploy all of their troops to the eastern front and fight a much bigger fight with the Russians.

Even with this kind amount of troops, flaks, 88mm, tanks, planes, ... they couldn't win, but a cease-fire could have been possible then.

But to win the war - from the Russians - in October 1944, was impossible. The latest change they got was at the gates at Stalingrad. If they defeated the Russians there, then they had a lot more possibilities.

 

*COUGH*

What?

Maybe winning a local battle here and there, but the entire darn WW II until May 1944? You'll have to start VERY early in you chain of iffies to see USA, USSR, GB waving a white flag in April 1944!

Cheers,

 

I would agree with Friedrich, the fact is that the Waffen SS was a mere shadow of its former self. There may have been many "SS Armies" but they consisted of only 2 partially strength Waffen SS divisions and regular Heeres Infantry divisions. The Waffen SS no longer had the enthusiastic volunteers but now had conscripts who were not the diehards of the old guard.

Even if they were fully staffed and munitions as well as arms were at full levels, the logigistics in feeding and maintaining this "huge" force just did not exist. The German back was broken in 43 and victory was lost. The only option was to end the war and hope for the best.

 

Maybe I will be getting out of the subject a bit, but I have to comment some things Erwin said...

Even if this had happened (which I doubt), a reorganisation must be made after the victory, not 100% of the troops in France were going to be transferred to the East and all this was going to take, at least some 6 weeks. But just three weeks later, in June 22nd 1944, operation 'Bagration" was launched and by the end of July, Army Group Centre had ceased to exist. I don't think that all the reinforcements for France would have arrived on time to save the Eastern Front...

 

This is true and by lengthining the war would have led to the defeat of germany in a much more worse way. Assuming the german somehow hold the Allies at the Rhine, This would have led to the implementation of the B-29 Superfortress to the air war and eventually led to the use of the Atomic bomb on Berlin and other important areas. The Germans were doomed to loose one way or another. You have to remember that the Atomic bomb was designed to be used against Germany.

 

Indeed, Mahross, the A-bomb was created to use it against Germany, but I deeply doubt about Churchill or Roosvelt using it at EUROPE.

 

I think Roosevelt might of. At the end of the day he did suggest making germany a agrarian economy so i think he might of used it. By the time it could have been used it would have been Truman as president and i think he would use. He had no problems against Japan and then in the Korean war he almost gace Macarthur the oppurtunity to use them against the Chinese.

 

At Europe? Don't think so. The French, British and Russians would not have agreed. Using such a terrible weapon on European WHITE citizens, in the sacred soil of Europe and so close of other countries' borders? Not possible.

And A-bomb and an agricultural society? Don't match... unless you want radioactive potatoes...

 

Radiation and the terrific amount of destruction wasn't taken too much into consideration by the military and political leaders at this time.

I remember watching pictures of US soldiers walking through the smoke of a a-bomb test in 1949.

Basically, the A-bomb was just a new weapon replacing several 1,000 bomber raids with one single airdrop. The U.S. military considered to use it even tactically on a planned invasion of Japan to prepare the LZ.

In 1945, the WAllies had little reluctance to imply any method of force to end the killing and win the war in the ETO.

Cheers,

 

Friedrich the link i was trying to show was that Roosevelt was up to 1943 make the germans pay heavily for the war. I wasn't comparing i was stating that Rossevelt at least was willing to make germany pay be it in physical military damage during the war i.e. the atomic bomb or in post war economic terms i.e. making it an agrian society.

I think had stalin had the bomb he probably would have used it on the germans. Remember it was a war of annihilation between germany and the soviets unlike between the west and germany.

As andy sated the allies did not no much about the effects that the weapons would have anyway. they simply viewed it as another special bomb like upkeep, tall boy and grand slam. Also the british were quite willing to fire bomb german cities.