Reading Guderian - a Qu. for grogs

[HarryInk]

I was a prat today and advised a mate to read Guderian cos he's let me bunch up on all his tanks and pick 'em off one by one.

I've got my copy of Panzer Leader (1974 paperback ed by Futura Books) and read the prewar part before I got distracted to other things. Other than that, I've read about Guderian rather than G himself.

So my question is: What are the best bits of Panzer Leader to read if you want hints on how to handle armor in CM? Any of it? Or are we best reading about G. rather than reading it in detail?

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by HarryInk:

I was a prat today and advised a mate to read Guderian cos he's let me bunch up on all his tanks and pick 'em off one by one.

I've got my copy of Panzer Leader (1974 paperback ed by Futura Books) and read the prewar part before I got distracted to other things. Other than that, I've read about Guderian rather than G himself.

So my question is: What are the best bits of Panzer Leader to read if you want hints on how to handle armor in CM? Any of it? Or are we best reading about G. rather than reading it in detail?

"Panzer Leader" is more Guderian's memoirs of WW2 than tactical tank commanding, mainly describes his Korps lv operations with added color commentary. I don't remember anything in there that would help you with play in CM. With operational games yes, but CM no.

Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" has more detail on how armored units should operate but still aimed at the Regimental and Divisional lvs.

I too, am always on the look for good small unit tactic books. I hear "Tigers in the Mud" is a good one (next on the reading list). Also, a lot of books simply about tanks such as in Osprey's books have little tid-bits on tactical applications. Too bad M. Wittman didn't survive the war, he would have had some really good insight.

[HarryInk]

Thanks. That's the impression I had to Panzer Leader. Now I'll have to hunt about for AP...

[Sirocco]

I found Panzertaktik by Wolfgang Schneider helped me a great deal, but it's quite expensive. The Guderian books are very interesting, but as I recall from reading them won't help much with CM.

[HarryInk]

Ah well then. I'll apologise to him and tell him to read about Guderian then! *L*

Thanks

Harry

[sugafudahuh]

ive got Panzer leader;i was a little sadened to learn of the popor leadership qualities of some of the generals(himmler for example), and then when guderian was relived of his post, and when he was on the eastern front and said ''not once was a situation not put right by a timely retreat'', and when hitler sent in panthers and tigers underdeveloped and not correctly prepared(armed without mg's).

[HarryInk]

You thought Himmler would be a good leader?! Spineless Heinrich?! A man who pretty well personifies the evil of weakness? No no no...

[George MC]

Check out the Nafziger Collection. there are several inexpensive but very good books about small unit armour tactics.

Try german Panzer tactics in world war II by Charles C. Sharp and/or The german Tank Platoon in WWII: Its training and employment in battle. Great stuff for getting some top tips for use in CM.

Cheers fur noo

George Mc

[JasonC]

The smallest formation Guderian commanded in WW II was a panzer corps. Later he had a full panzer army and later still was inspector general of all armored forces. He was not a tactician during the war.

About the only operation Guderian planned tactically was the crossing of the Meuse at Sedan in 1940. In wargames before the event. Notably, this action was critical to the success of the campaign but could not rely tactically on the employment of armor, which was stranded on the near bank throughout the critical period. The whole point was to get other forces across, holding a wide enough area long enough to let the armor cross.

Pre-war, Guderian was responsible for two critical areas of innovation in the German armor forces. Technical changes to tanks to enable them to see and communicate more effectively, and combined arms doctrine, specifically providing truck borne motorized forces of all arms, to keep up with the tanks and work with them at their own pacing.

During the war, Guderian was involved many critical decisions but they were operationally in scale, not tactical.

[HarryInk]

Thanks all. I'll apologise to my mate and see if I can hunt up some refs for him. Given that the aim is that he'll end up kicking my arse, I don't know why I should do this. Perhaps it exposes the generous masochist in me??!

[Cannon-fodder]

There's a few good passages in 'Panzer Leader' - the extracts from the handbook he prepared etc. Still worth a read if you want an insight into upper level command of armored forces.

As to books worth reading for armor tactics, i reccommend having a look through the 'Rommel Papers' - many extracts in that alluring to tank tactics. Also talks about the first implementation of 'Bounding advances' for tanks, under overwatch - at least the first one I can think of.

Other than that just pick up and read little sections from books like 'How To Make War' (not a great tankers reference, but does the trick occasionally). Also I found that reading up on AT gun use helped a lot - often you want your tank to act like a mobile AT gun. The 'Rommel Papers' were also particularly helpful to me in this respect.

[jjhays]

Tigers in the mud is an excellent read from a first person perspective. It may not give you a complete tactical picture of tank warfare but it does give a good picture of it. Much better than Guderians book which I consider all those books written in the 50's to be rather apologetic than anything else.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by jjhays:

Tigers in the mud is an excellent read from a first person perspective. It may not give you a complete tactical picture of tank warfare but it does give a good picture of it. Much better than Guderians book which I consider all those books written in the 50's to be rather apologetic than anything else.

Yes, you are right about that. Guderian, Manstien, Rommel read like they are all very nice grandpas that loved life and see the good in all things. Especially, Guderian (due to this topic I'm rereading my copy of Panzer Leader) I don't think he has a bad word for anyone, always referring to "that very nice French general" or "the honorable Polish soldiers". Yet, they all must have had a very dark side to them, as would anyone that would be successfull at the art of war.

....one day I'll get around to purchasing "Tigers in the Mud".

Is there a book written by or about von Luck?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Is there a book written by or about von Luck?

Panzer Commander, which is a great read.

[Shmavis]

Maybe I'm just being the devil's advocate, but Carius seemed to do a lot of whining in his book. I found it to be neither entertaining nor informative, and the fact that he seemed to show so much admiration for a monster like Himmler makes me question his judgement. He doesn't jump on the apology bandwagon, though.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Shmavis:

Carius seemed to do a lot of whining in his book.

Having almost completed the book, it seems to me that Carius hadn't come to terms with the fact that Germany not only started the ball rolling, but did some very unsavoury things on a grand, organised scale. He seems to seperate the front line soldier and the home front from the rest of the picture.

[Shmavis]

originally posted by Sirocco:

He seems to seperate the front line soldier and the home front from the rest of the picture.

Yes, I've noticed that tendency in the memoirs of German veterans.

[ October 07, 2004, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Shmavis ]

[Macphail]

well its true. the average front line soldier that went into russia, were told they were liberating the russian people from their communist oppressors. most of them believed it. as you would suspect, the front line guys had no idea what was being discussed and planned in berlin.

[Leopard_2]

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Especially, Guderian (due to this topic I'm rereading my copy of Panzer Leader) I don't think he has a bad word for anyone, always referring to "that very nice French general" or "the honorable Polish soldiers".

I've read quite some third-party-view literature on Rommel (though nothing written by himself), and especially in the North Africa theater, he was a commander well-respected by his opponents because he had honor, and treated e.g. POW's no worse than he had to.

Yet, they all must have had a very dark side to them, as would anyone that would be successfull at the art of war.

I find this a strange notion. You don't have to have some evil inside to be a good soldier, or officer, IMNSHO.

When I served my term in the German army, we exercised with dud munitions. We were told that, for safety reasons, we shouldn't aim directly at the other person, but a bit off to the side. (Since the gadget screwed on top of the barrel to increase the dud's recoil so the action would work could come off if you had really bad luck.)

When the **** hit the fan, I could never remember that. I went "target, aim, fire, change position, target, aim, fire, reload, ..." and fought until cease fire was called or ammo ran out. If anything, I was frustrated because those targets kept moving and firing back, with nothing to prove that I won and they lost...

Those were my comrades, the guys I did spend months with drilling and exercising, but when the action was up, they became mere targets, threats to be dealt with in the most effective way possible.

I think it isn't much different at the officer or general level. If you have the skill, you apply it. No sinister "dark side" involved. Killing is part of any animal capable of doing so, and on the battlefield it's to kill or being killed.

And besides, that would mean Patton, Montgommery et al. would have that "dark side", too. What they did was no different.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Leopard_2 ]

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by Leopard_2:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Especially, Guderian (due to this topic I'm rereading my copy of Panzer Leader) I don't think he has a bad word for anyone, always referring to "that very nice French general" or "the honorable Polish soldiers".

I've read quite some third-party-view literature on Rommel (though nothing written by himself), and especially in the North Africa theater, he was a commander well-respected by his opponents because he had honor, and treated e.g. POW's no worse than he had to.

Yet, they all must have had a very dark side to them, as would anyone that would be successfull at the art of war.

I find this a strange notion. You don't have to have some evil inside to be a good soldier, or officer, IMNSHO.

When I served my term in the German army, we exercised with dud munitions. We were told that, for safety reasons, we shouldn't aim directly at the other person, but a bit off to the side. (Since the gadget screwed on top of the barrel to increase the dud's recoil so the action would work could come off if you had really bad luck.)

When the **** hit the fan, I could never remember that. I went "target, aim, fire, change position, target, aim, fire, reload, ..." and fought until cease fire was called or ammo ran out. If anything, I was frustrated because those targets kept moving and firing back, with nothing to prove that I won and they lost...

Those were my comrades, the guys I did spend months with drilling and exercising, but when the action was up, they became mere targets, threats to be dealt with in the most effective way possible.

I think it isn't much different at the officer or general level. If you have the skill, you apply it. No sinister "dark side" involved. Killing is part of any animal capable of doing so, and on the battlefield it's to kill or being killed.

And besides, that would mean Patton, Montgommery et al. would have that "dark side", too. What they did was no different. </font>

[Leopard_2]

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

Generals at the top command levels are not soldiers they are statesman. They plan, initiate, and execute the war to destroy and ruin the lives of others. I can not believe that they do this with the same good conscience as that of a milk man.

Let's stick to the actual persons mentioned. WWII certainly was not "initiated" by any of the Generals. Some were a bit too eager to follow, for my tastes, but it was initiated by Hitler.

As for the planning and executing, you are right, they did it. But, in all honesty, what was the alternative? They did chose to become officers because that was what they were good at. All Generals of WWII started their officer's carreer well before the Nazis took control, unless I am seriously mistaken.

So you are a senior officer in your country's army. Suddenly, political leadership changes, and thinks quickly escalate. Army is growing (with a real career to be made!), and country is getting set for a war. (Up until now, not so different from the Bush administration. I'm sure several senior officers in Iraq disagree with that war; did any of them raise a ruckus about it?)

Now remember, it's not like everyone at that time was treated with horrible pictures from Auschwitz in school. It's not like there wasn't some sound, if twisted, logic behind the arguments of the Nazis. Talk about Germany being the big bad aggressor could easily be dismissed for enemy propaganda, and joining in such talk was high treason.

And quite many people actually believed the "backstab legend", that German forces were not defeated in the field in WWI, but "backstabbed" by politics.

All this could make a German General sleep rather well those days, at least in the overtures of the war.

Once all hell broke lose, you have an army in the field. Your men are dying out there, and it's your job to make plans so the number of casualties is at a minimum for the job at hand. That can keep you quite busy, with very little time to ponder philosophy of war or who started it all.

Such thoughts are very easy to have sixty years later and no personal involvement whatsoever.

There is a big difference in perception on who the aggressor is and who the defender is.

I don't think many officers in Vietnam or Afghanistan did think much about that question either, most certainly not after the first shots were fired.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

You obviously don't know the politcal climate in the USA regarding the Iraqi war. You obviously, don't know about the US peace movements during the Vietnam War that help cause the US withdrawal. You obviously don't know that the US army doesn't execute civilians or prisoners of war. You obviously don't know that every US general has a big government body that calculates the political impact of every single order he gives, which in turn actually hinders the action of our military and endangers the lives of our troops, all to minimize enemy caulties.

It is obvious that you fall in line with the folks that think it was all Hitler's fault and the German people were forced or tricked to his will. We in the US know the truth. I think most Germans know the truth.

[Leopard_2]

Oh come on. What's that now?

Originally posted by FM Paul Heinrik:

You obviously don't know the politcal climate in the USA regarding the Iraqi war.

Which one do you mean - the one of the people thinking you're doing a great job there or the one of the people thinking it was a major mistake?

And what does it have to do with what we're talking about?

You obviously, don't know about the US peace movements during the Vietnam War that help cause the US withdrawal.

No, of course I am completely ignorant of it. And again, what does it have to do with the subject of all German WWII Generals having to have some great evil inside them?

You obviously don't know that the US army doesn't execute civilians or prisoners of war.

Erm... *bitingmytongue*... No, I won't go there. Your reaction is already heated enough as it is.

You obviously don't know that every US general has a big government body that calculates the political impact of every single order he gives, which in turn actually hinders the action of our military and endangers the lives of our troops, all to minimize enemy caulties.

I obviously don't know whether to laugh at this or not.

It is obvious that you fall in line with the folks that think it was all Hitler's fault and the German people were forced or tricked to his will. We in the US know the truth. I think most Germans know the truth.

I never said that, I never believed that, and I do take offense at being pushed into that category by your black & white thinking.

There certainly were people perfectly aware of the crimes of the Nazi regime in their full amorality, and happily having a hand in them. There weren't few of such people, and there is very little if anything to be said in favour of them.

But, if such a thought does fit into your world scheme, I can perfectly picture a frontline General not coming into contact with hard evidence, and dismissing the rumours as propaganda.

Just as well as I can picture you making a real good fascist. Or me, for that matter. It all depends on what we are fed, and how much we reflect on it.