Battle of France
-
Can anybody outline for the the pros and cons of the 3 routes of attack the Germans had to pick from the Battle of France? I know that the Ardennes had pretty thick forest that the French thought the German couldn't pass through. The route via the Low Countries were well-anticipated by the Allies but why did the German General Staff consider using that route as the main axis of attack? Surely that would have been some pros in using that route.
-
They were using Blitzreig as their strategy, so suppose they made a quick one by land a nd air o secure the pass, followed by Panzers going in with Infantry at the back, they could do it in a quick time.
-
There were essentially two, not three main routes of attack into France. You've pointed out the Ardennes and the Low Countries. Attacking the Maginot Line would've been unnecessarily painful.Originally posted by fallin:Can anybody outline for the the pros and cons of the 3 routes of attack the Germans had to pick from the Battle of France? I know that the Ardennes had pretty thick forest that the French thought the German couldn't pass through. The route via the Low Countries were well-anticipated by the Allies but why did the German General Staff consider using that route as the main axis of attack? Surely that would have been some pros in using that route.
In WWI, the Germans attacked through Belgium in their famous Schlieffen Plan. It failed, but it was a close run thing. The Allies expected them to try again, since the Ardennes was assumed to be impassable to tanks. Initially the Germans were going to try the Schlieffen route again, except this time they would also invade neutral Holland. The only pro in my opinion with this unimaginative approach is that it saved the General Staff time and effort. They didn't have to come up with a new invasion plan.
Good thing for the Germans they had innovative strategists like Manstein and field generals like Guderian and Rommel. -
One is honoured that Molke himself could answer my questionOriginally posted by Moltke:There were essentially two, not three main routes of attack into France. You've pointed out the Ardennes and the Low Countries. Attacking the Maginot Line would've been unnecessarily painful.
In WWI, the Germans attacked through Belgium in their famous Schlieffen Plan. It failed, but it was a close run thing. The Allies expected them to try again, since the Ardennes was assumed to be impassable to tanks. Initially the Germans were going to try the Schlieffen route again, except this time they would also invade neutral Holland. The only pro in my opinion with this unimaginative approach is that it saved the General Staff time and effort. They didn't have to come up with a new invasion plan.
Good thing for the Germans they had innovative strategists like Manstein and field generals like Guderian and Rommel.
But seriously, I would take the reputations of Manstein and Guderian with a pinch of salt. After all, a lot of these German generals built their reputations themselves with their own auto-biographies. -
considering Guderian did indeed build up the german armour force well i dont think he was bragging to much hah.You cannot deny the success of the armies they commanded thoughOriginally posted by fallin:One is honoured that Molke himself could answer my question
But seriously, I would take the reputations of Manstein and Guderian with a pinch of salt. After all, a lot of these German generals built their reputations themselves with their own auto-biographies. -
I assure you I know a bit more about them than what they write in "Lost Victories" and "Panzer Leader".Originally posted by fallin:But seriously, I would take the reputations of Manstein and Guderian with a pinch of salt. After all, a lot of these German generals built their reputations themselves with their own auto-biographies.
Fact is, these guys were among the best generals Germany had during the war. Think about it, imagine if Hitler didn't meddle, replaced idiot Keitel with Manstein, the world might well have turned out differently. Or at least the Allies would've taken a lot longer to reach Berlin.
As for their autobiographies, sure they might've exaggerated a bit here and there, but most objective histories of WW2, written by British and American authors (their enemies) give them full credit for Germany's early blitzkrieg (1939-41) victories.
And Guderian WAS the father of the armored force. Even Patton gives him credit for his innovative ideas.