Rommel's Solution for Russian Front

[Elefant]

The following was Rommels idea for stabilizing German forces on the Eastern Front while preparing to defeat the D-Day landings. Imagine, the master of mobile warfare came to believe that victory could not be achieved by mobile warfare because the German armaments industry couldn't keep pace with the allies in war production.

Rommel's solution

"The Russian attacks head on, with enormous expenditure of material and tries to smash his way thru by sheer force of numbers." "If we can give the German infantry divisions 200 75mm PAK's and install them in carefully prepared positions, covered by large minefields we shall be able to halt the Russians." "There is not the slightest hope of our keeping pace with the enemy in the production of tanks, but we certainly can in the production of anti tank guns." "For every 1 tank the Russian makes, we can make 10 anti tank guns."

"Suppose that the Russians attack in a heavily mined sector where our anti tank guns are forming a screen 6 miles deep, for all of the Russians mass of material they are bound to bog down in the first few days and then have to gnaw there way through slowly." "Meanwhile, we shall be installing more anti tank guns behind our screen." "If the enemy makes 3 miles progress per day, we must build 6 miles depth of anti tank screen and let him run himself to a standstill." "Our last chance in the East lies in equipping the army throughly for and unyielding defense." "But the West is the place that matters, if we manange to throw the British and Americans back into the sea it will be a long time before they return.

[Pzman]

Interesting view of eastern front war, but some problems such as the size of the front itself. Even if the Germans did that, the Russians would just attack till they found a spot that was not belted and just flank the entire lot of them.

[ParaBellum]

I doubt this would have been be a sound solution to the problems on the eastern front. I'm pretty sure the massive soviet preparatory artillery barrages would be able to smash a hole in any forward defense, and with the red army mobile formations breaking through these gaps the lack of a mobile, tank-heavy counter-offensive force would spell doom on the defenders.

[Elefant]

Is it possible that as you fan out along the axis of attack, the attacking forces would be succeptible to being counterattacked by the panzer corps held in reserve? Remember what Mainstein did at Kharkov.

I think Rommels goal as Guderians was later, was to hold on in the East, dig in, mobile defense, local counterattacks, or even limited objective attacks, until the situation in the West could be decided. If the landings at Normandy were defeated then the Germans would have been able to shift a significant amount of forces East possibly go over to the offensive or sue for peace and hang on to the territory they were already holding.

[ParaBellum]

But for an armoured counterattack to succeed you first have to have an armoured force at all. And since the attrition rate for the Panzers was very high you need your industry to produce as many tanks as possible. So I doubt it would've been possible to somehow substitute tanks for AT guns.

It is interesting that Guderian advocated the use of Stugs and Jagdpanzers to replace the rather immobile AT guns within the infantry divisions when he became inspector general of panzer troops.

[General Bolt]

Sounds like Rommel wanted to do what the Russians did at Kursk to defeat Citadel.

Have you designed the scenario yet?

[David I]

I'm a little puzzled by Rommel's comment "If we can give the German Infantry Divisions 200 75mm PAKs...". 200 AT guns would be about 1 per division, so this can't be his meaning. I can only conclude that he was suggesting 200 AT guns per division (that would be 3 times the authorized amount, using 36 AT Guns in the Panzerjager Battalion + the dozen or so in the Regimental AT units).

In CM terms say a 75mm PAK costs 75 points in 1944 (I'm using 75 points as a hypothetical), but using the Rommel plan now costs 20 points, how many would you field? Alot I bet.

Let's compare that to Guderian's planned and implimented ideas for the '44 Infantry Division. He added 12 Stugs to the PzJager Battalion, but reduced the number of 75mm PAKs to 14 (and added 12 20mm AA Guns). This allowed some mobility (read added offensive capability) but relied heavily on PanzerFaust armed Infantry to stop Russian Tanks. This, as history proved, did not work very well.

Rommel, with no advantage of hindsight, was suggesting a Strategic and Tactical Defense in the East. His '44 Inf. Division would have no armour, but 200 AT guns. Deployed in depth and supported by enough Panzer Divisions to seal off any penetrations, it might, might, have had better results.

In CM terms this might mean that 135 point Stug III's now cost 200 points, 168 point Pz IV's 210 points, and 240 point Pz V's 290 points.

Interesting thought though.

DavidI

[Akula2]

I'm with him.

10 AT guns to a Soviet tank? Bring the barrages on!!

Pz says:

but some problems such as the size of the front

10 guns to one tank. The size issue favors this strategy.

EDIT-

The true problem is getting them there. It would have been a tremendous strain on an already difficult supply train.

[Elefant]

You have the discerning eye David I, Rommel's proposal was for 200 AT guns for each division.

[MikeyD]

Ironic that Rommel would propose a 'Maginot Line' style defense for the East. And like the Maginot Line, all the Soviets would have to do is find that one thinly defended spot in the front ("Nobody would do an armored thrust through a forest!" -sound familiar?) to break out and encircle the whole lot of them.

I think Rommel's ideas were less an 'ideal solution' and more 'making the best of a bad situation'.

[Michael Emrys]

IIRC, Rommel wrote his thesis in late summer of 1944 when he was on extended sick leave. It was not a serious proposal but just some ideas he sketched in his diary in response to hearsay reports of what the Soviets were doing. Which reports were none too accurate, I might add.

Fixed defenses such as he advocates would have been reconned and targetted by the Soviets, who would have reduced most of them by artillery before the main attack began.

By 1944, there was probably nothing at all the Germans could have done to stop the Soviet juggernaut, although there may have been a lot they could have done to slow it a bit and save themselves some casualties. But even that is controversial.

Michael

[Pzman]

I agree MikeyD, and I was thinking along the same lines.

[Michael Dorosh]

Was this the same Rommel who was convinced an amphibious invasion could be stopped on the beaches? He was wrong about that too...

I hear he was a good infantry company commander though.

[Elefant]

Michael, Rommel was absolutely right that the best time to stop an amphibious invasion is at the beach and not when the invaders have had time to land, and bring ashore, tanks, artillery, supplies and a lot more men to consolidate their hold and begin building up for the eventual break out.

If the panzer and panzer grenadier divisions had been at the invasion sector that morning the invasion would have failed.

[Elefant]

Gentlemen, Rommels defenses would not be fixed a la Maginot line, but as the invader penetrates the line, you would effect a fighting withdrawl as additional anti tank gun screens and mines were laid along the enemys avenue of approach. Bog them down and then counterattack. Hold in the East, win in the West and back to the East for??

[MikeyD]

"Rommel was absolutely right that the best time to stop an amphibious invasion is at the beach"

His biggest problem was that Hitler had him defending the wrong beach! If the allies had indeed aimed for Calais instead of Normandy could Rommel have actually succeeded at repulsing the invasion?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Elefant:

Michael, Rommel was absolutely right that the best time to stop an amphibious invasion is at the beach and not when the invaders have had time to land, and bring ashore, tanks, artillery, supplies and a lot more men to consolidate their hold and begin building up for the eventual break out.

If the panzer and panzer grenadier divisions had been at the invasion sector that morning the invasion would have failed.

How would two or three panzer divisions being slaughtered by naval gunfire and close air support have caused the landings to fail?

[Pzman]

Calais would have been a lot harder on the Allies. I wonder what the land based defences there were compaired to Normandy. Panzer and PanzerGrenadier units aside I mean.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Elefant:

Gentlemen, Rommels defenses would not be fixed a la Maginot line, but as the invader penetrates the line, you would effect a fighting withdrawl as additional anti tank gun screens and mines were laid along the enemys avenue of approach. Bog them down and then counterattack. Hold in the East, win in the West and back to the East for??

Doesn't that take time? I mean laying minefields and setting up AT guns? Do you think the could have pulled that off that quickly? Those T34's are pretty fast you know. Or am I misinterpreting you?

Besides I think if this were to succeed you would need to have all of these resources ready over the entire front, because for the limited reading that I have done, the Russians seem to be very good at deceiving.

[Elefant]

Rommels ghost and I will agree that the naval gunfire support and air support would have been devastating. Rommel, was aware of the overwhelming allied fire support from his time in DAK, that is why he advocated for the panzer divisions to be as close to the beaches as possible. Rommel knew and history has shown us that the panzers would be massacred while moving up from their assembly areas in the rear to reinforce the front.

However, when the boats are heading towards the beach you have to lift the bombardment to land them. Then you are left with DD's closing on the beach and direct firing with 5 inchers which would peel open a tank in 1 shot, but I doubt the accuracy would be very good.

So there are thousands of guys, soaking wet, seasick, no anti-tank guns, no tank support as the shermans were under 30 feet of water, carrying only the ammo on their backs fighting for their lives while being raked with MG fire from the heights and Panther tanks with grenadiers engaging them on the beach. Remember, that Omaha was almost evacuated, if panzers and infantry support had been available, there would have been no one remaining to evacuate.

[Michael Dorosh]

PaKFront....hmm, let's do a JasonC.

a) how many German divisions were in the line on, say, 1 June 1944?

how many kilometres of front line did they hold on that date?

assume they actually had 200 AT Guns per division, figure out the density of AT guns per kilometre.

Remember that the above is a single line and does not allow for defence in depth.

The Allies faced some pretty dense PaK fronts in Normandy also, and managed to persevere, though admittedly they were helped by the inane counter-attack at Mortain.

I suspect the numbers might show a bit of pie in the sky, even after the silly assertion that 200 AT guns per division was even possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Elefant:

Rommels ghost and I will agree that the naval gunfire support and air support would have been devastating. Rommel, was aware of the overwhelming allied fire support from his time in DAK, that is why he advocated for the panzer divisions to be as close to the beaches as possible. Rommel knew and history has shown us that the panzers would be massacred while moving up from their assembly areas in the rear to reinforce the front.

However, when the boats are heading towards the beach you have to lift the bombardment to land them. Then you are left with DD's closing on the beach and direct firing with 5 inchers which would peel open a tank in 1 shot, but I doubt the accuracy would be very good.

So there are thousands of guys, soaking wet, seasick, no anti-tank guns, no tank support as the shermans were under 30 feet of water, carrying only the ammo on their backs fighting for their lives while being raked with MG fire from the heights and Panther tanks with grenadiers engaging them on the beach. Remember, that Omaha was almost evacuated, if panzers and infantry support had been available, there would have been no one remaining to evacuate.

Was Omaha really close to being evacuated? There was talk of landing follow up waves at Utah instead.

Look at Juno instead of the worst case scenario; the Third Division was through the sea defences and into the towns within an hour. They would have been well prepared to fight German armour and infantry in the streets - the Regina Rifles used their PIATs to good effect in the days following D-Day in similar actions. I rather expect they, along with the SPs that were landed on the first day, could have engaged German armour on equal terms, or at least those panzer companies equipped with PzKpfw IVs.

SP artillery was ashore within a couple of hours of the landings and would have broken up German counterattacks rather nicely methinks.

[MikeyD]

The most EFFICIENTsolution to the problem would've been to give up, run away, abandon your uniforms, burn all your Nazi documents, go back home and tend your gardens, and hope the occupying Russians don't butcher you all for sheer spite. I estimate that that tactic might've possibly saved some 10 million on both sides - at a minimum!

[Elefant]

concur

[Corvidae]

This is june of 44 we are talking about,, the russians were still in russia, poland was still safely within german hands, and there is a river called the vitsula,, runs from south to north in poland,, dig in on both sides, about say 10 km deep on each side, thats 20 km deep plus the river width,,,, mine the bridges in advance,, and create hidden submerged bridges in areas that can be easily covered from the west bank, clear out all civilian population from the area,, establish amo factorys,, small ones,, easily hidden behind the zone, , At the same time,, build an identical line along the russia/poland border, also 20 km deep,, build up a mobile PzGren force in poland, and train them hard,, untill they know the landscape intimately,, By the time the russians reach poland,( sept or oct of 44) you are ready for them, can you cook bratwurst on a burning T34?? lets find out