Shermans and Burning Too easily.....

[busboy]

Neat. I get the impression that by the end of World War One the Germans were realizing te folly of trench warfare and were beginning to adopt stormtrooper tactics, as I've heard it called. This is what I'd expect Rommel's book to be about. Indeed, that was something to be learned about the Germans between the wars. The British and French expected the next war to be fought like the last, but the Germans had moved beyond that.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

The British and French expected the next war to be fought like the last, but the Germans had moved beyond that.

Not precisely true of the British. In fact, for a while during the '20s and very early '30s they were probably the world leaders in working out combined arms procedures. Guderian studied their work closely and based the development of German doctrine on it. The great pity is that the Brits then sort of put all that work on the shelf and more or less ceased to develop it further. They then had to learn it all over again—at the hands of the Germans.

Michael

[Andreas]

I also think the British were certain they were not going to fight the same war again. Their problem was more that they did not quite know what kind of war they would fight. They had the only fully mechanised army in the world in 1940, and had a plausible theory of strategic air warfare before the war. Unfortunately they could not quite agree on what they thought, it seems

Rommel's book - according to the original intro (I own the English language Greenhill edition), it was barely noticed before Rommel rose to fame. The translation was undertaken in 43, the translated version published in 44.

Contents:

All small unit (below BN level) infantry actions. Mostly in difficult terrain.

This is not the official ToC:

1. War of movement 1914, Belgium/northern France

2. War in the trenches in the Vosges and Argonne

3. Mountain warfare in the Carpathians

4. Mountain warfare in Italy

Hope that helps.

[busboy]

Interesting! I wish I had more time to read for leisure.

The British certianly were very active between the wars with ides of mobile warfare, but it seems like by the start of WW2 they were back on the defensive stump. There were actually some very potent prewar tank designs being stewed over in England. If the English crusier tanks had slightly thicker and better shaped armor, they would have been more than a match for the Panzers if they were fighting by the same tactics. Did the Depression kill British armored development?

Has anyone read about the French invasion of Germany in 1939? While the Germans were in Poland, a small (maybe battalion sized unit) actually crossed into Germany and occupied a town unopposed. Finding nothing there, they simply went home, causing no damage, not even to the local power plant. Its been a very long time since I read this article, a wargaming buddy posted a link about this a long while back (maybe it was even here?)

Why were the French and British so hesitant about taking offensive measures at the start of WW2, and later in the Sitzkrieg? It seems to me that they still weeren't quite mentally ready to fight, and were waiting to see how serious the Germans were about the war.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

Neat. I get the impression that by the end of World War One the Germans were realizing te folly of trench warfare and were beginning to adopt stormtrooper tactics, as I've heard it called. This is what I'd expect Rommel's book to be about. Indeed, that was something to be learned about the Germans between the wars. The British and French expected the next war to be fought like the last, but the Germans had moved beyond that.

The British had already modified their offensive tactics beginning in 1915, resulting in attacks based upon fire and manoeuvre, irregular and leapfrogging columns in the attack and a greater cooperation with field artillery allied with new techniques such as the creeping and the wall barrage. They proved so successful that the Germans were forced to develop the “elastic defence”.

“Stormtrooper” tactics were nothing but German refinements of 1915 British/Dominion "Set Piece" attack tactics such as the taking and defence of Gravenstafel and Abraham’s Heights on the 4 Oct 1917 by the New Zealand Division. As first envisaged by Rawlinson after Neuve Chapelle 1915.

[ October 10, 2002, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by busboy:

Interesting! I wish I had more time to read ...

Originally posted by busboy:

Has anyone read about the French invasion of Germany in 1939? While the Germans were in Poland, a small (maybe battalion sized unit) actually crossed into Germany and occupied a town unopposed. Finding nothing there, they simply went home, causing no damage, not even to the local power plant. Its been a very long time since I read this article, a wargaming buddy posted a link about this a long while back (maybe it was even here?)

Again with the poorly remembered sources? Beginning on Sept 7th French patrols cross the frontier into Germany near Saarbrucken, marking the beginning of the Saar offensive. A total of 11 divisions advance along a 32 km frontage. There is negligible German opposition. The French mobilization is too slow and their tactical system too inflexible to permit any grander offensive operation. These gentle probes continue until September 17th when a larger advance is supposed to be made but is in fact cancelled because the Polish collapse makes it pointless.

Regards

JonS

[ October 10, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[busboy]

I don't see why the Polish collapse made things pointless though. They were still at war with Germany, unless they expected the war to end fairly bloodlessly after that (which would seem the height of folly.) It would seem to me that the wisest course of action would be to get things into gear and get some sort of logistical something going before the troops in Poland got back to the French frontier.

What I remember reading must have just detailed a smaller unit of the advance, I had no idea it was that large. I remember what I read specifically talked about a particular town being taken, and that they didn't destroy some powerplant on the way out. This was several years back that I read this, and I don't have the link, so yes it is poorly remembered.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

Did the Depression kill British armored development?

It seriously retarded it. The Depression put a crimp in most defense spending in most countries. In the UK, I think the RAF did best, followed by the RN. But the Army was definitely the Cinderella child and had to suck hind tit for almost everything. This was a more or less reasonable policy based on a rational appreciation of Britain's strategic priorities.

It is worth noting that Hitler's rearmament program would have quickly proven an economic disaster for Germany if there hadn't been quickly conquered countries to plunder. True, it put an end to severe employment, but due to wage controls the workers weren't making all that much money. Plus, the emphasis on war production meant that not all that much extra in consumer goods was being produced even had the workers the means to purchase them. Perhaps more seriously for the German economy, they weren't producing much in the way of trade goods to bring in foreign exchange.

Why were the French and British so hesitant about taking offensive measures at the start of WW2, and later in the Sitzkrieg? It seems to me that they still weeren't quite mentally ready to fight, and were waiting to see how serious the Germans were about the war.

The Allies were playing for time while their rearmament proceeded and were hoping to put off a decisive confrontation with Hitler until they could do it on better terms. Toward that end, they tried to avoid provoking him into violent reactions. We now know with the benefit of hindsight that this was just whistling past the graveyard, but at the time it was not obviously wrong.

Again, Churchill argued for a more vigorous policy. Whether he did that because he had a more realistic insight into the situation and Hitler's mentality or it was simply in his nature to advocate vigorous and aggressive action and this time happened to be right, we may never know. There is evidence to support either view.

But one of his ideas was to release floating mines into the Rhine where it passed French territory in order to disrupt inland maritime traffic on the river. This would have had a serious, though not decisive impact on the German economy. The French dragged their heels on this, not wanting to provoke Hitler, until finally just days before the onset of Fall Geld granting approval to the project.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

I don't see why the Polish collapse made things pointless though.

For two reasons. Firstly, the offensive was launched to support Poland. After the end of September, there was no Poland to support. Secondly, with the end of Polish resistance, the Germans would shift their forces to the west.

It might also be observed that there was little in the way of strategic objectives of any great importance readily accessible from French territory. The traditional route of conquering armies is through the Low Countries (for good reason) and in 1939-40 they weren't playing.

Michael

[busboy]

Hmm, thanks for the reply. The Depression sure hit military development hard in the states too. Congress was so much against wasting money on tanks that the cavalry was naming their armored vehicles "combat cars."

Its Ironic to note that in the 30s, weapon development moved at probably the slowest pace of the 20th century, but during the 40s it moved at its quickest pace. In what other war in the history of man have the tecnhical aspects of war advanced so quickly and thouroughly?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

In what other war in the history of man have the tecnhical aspects of war advanced so quickly and thouroughly?

Possibly the one in which a guy figured out that if he tied a rock to the end of his stick he could hit harder with it. It's all relative...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

In any event, I think you should exclude airplanes from the list of retarded weapons developments. It's true that from the end of WW I up until the mid '30s they didn't change a whole lot. In fact, greater progress was being made in the field of civil aviation. But then in the mid-30s the graph really started to turn upward. All-metal monoplanes with retractable landing gear and higher powered engines became the rule and performance increased dramatically. Most of the planes the war was fought with were designed and first flew during the '30s.

Michael

[busboy]

Even in those planes you still see incredable advancements. By the end of WW2, the Spitfire was using an engine with twice the horsepower it origianally used. The U.S. at the start of its involvement still had some ancient P-26 Peashooters in the Phillipines, amd by the end of the war we had created the B-29, an 'intercontinental" attack weapon. I believe the first B-29 prototype flew in 1942.

The most famous of all American WW2 fighter aircraft, the P-51 was created in a very brief time well after the U.S. was involved.

In the interwar years, aircraft may have evolved faster than other elements of war, but the evolution in WW2 still marks such a drastic increase in that development the likes of which perhaps will not be seen again. It seems now any war that begins will be fought with the weapons at hand, not the weapons in production.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by busboy:

Hmm, thanks for the reply. The Depression sure hit military development hard in the states too. Congress was so much against wasting money on tanks that the cavalry was naming their armored vehicles "combat cars."

That didn't have anything to do with the depression: the term "combat cars" came about because (based on a law from 1920), only the infantry could have tanks; the cavalry could not.

I don't think that there's too much evidence that the depression hurt military development in the US, because military development in the 20's was also largely stunted.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

...we had created the B-29, an 'intercontinental" attack weapon.

The B-29 doesn't quite rate as an intercontinental bomber. That honor was first claimed by the B-36, although the Germans had a prototype (the "Amerika" bomber) that was in the running.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I don't think that there's too much evidence that the depression hurt military development in the US, because military development in the 20's was also largely stunted.

I'd say that it hurt it some when it became obvious that the US would get drawn into the European war and we started rearming as quickly as we could. On the other hand, the Depression meant that there was a lot of unused industrial potential that could be quickly geared up for war production, so it cuts both ways.

But you are right that the Army was drastically cut back after World War I and kept back largely due to isolationism and the feeling that we were secure behind two broad oceans. As evidence of that, you will note that the Navy was kept up to strength.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

The U.S. at the start of its involvement still had some ancient P-26 Peashooters in the Phillipines...

But that was only one end of the spectrum. At the other end was the P-40, the P-38, the F-4F, the SBD, and the B-17, the B-25, the A-20, and the B-26, among others. Still other planes were just coming off the drawing board, such as the F-4U, the P-51, the P-47, the TBF. And that's just in this country. In Europe, the Bf-109, Bf-110, He-111, Do-17, Ju-87, Hurricane, Spitfire, Blenheim, Wellington and many others were already in service with more on the way. The Japanese had the Zero, Val, Kate, and Betty and others. Like I said, most of the planes that fought the war were already flying before the war started.

This is not to miss the point that you raise correctly that there was indeed phenomenal progress that began in the late '30s and carried right through to the mid-'50s at least. Just that it started earlier than you seem to realize. I would also reiterate my previous point that advancements in military aviation were generally preceded during the '20s and '30s by improvements in civil aviation. This has not been the case since the war. Military and civil aviation have bifurcated and evolution in civil designs has been slow and incremental and while proceeding along very different lines than military, has adopted some measures pioneered in military aviation, such as fly-by-wire and the glass cockpit.

Michael

[ October 12, 2002, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Scots Grey]

Originally posted by busboy:

The British certianly were very active between the wars with ides of mobile warfare, but it seems like by the start of WW2 they were back on the defensive stump. There were actually some very potent prewar tank designs being stewed over in England. If the English crusier tanks had slightly thicker and better shaped armor, they would have been more than a match for the Panzers if they were fighting by the same tactics. Did the Depression kill British armored development?

QUOTE]

[Scots Grey]

Originally posted by busboy:

The British certianly were very active between the wars with ides of mobile warfare, but it seems like by the start of WW2 they were back on the defensive stump. There were actually some very potent prewar tank designs being stewed over in England. If the English crusier tanks had slightly thicker and better shaped armor, they would have been more than a match for the Panzers if they were fighting by the same tactics. Did the Depression kill British armored development?

Actually the story of British Tank Development between the wars is a sad tale of Government cutbacks,lack of vision and a General Staff obsessed with the horse.If you want to know more try book called "Mechanised Force" and "The Great Tank Scandal" by David Fletcher.I don't know if it would be readily available in the States as it was published by HMSO(thats Her Majesty's Stationary Office for the non-Brits amongst you)but you could try to see if its obtainable from places such as the Bovington Tank Museum(I'll try to post a URL later)

The really cruel thing about our tanks was that in 1937 the main battle tank of the British army was the Medium MkII(or Vickers Medium) which was designed in 1923.However this is a subject which i'm sure will get more attention when the Blitzkrieg game appears

[busboy]

Great summary Michael, I agree 100%. I used quotation marks around intercontinental because the B-29 was still lacking. I believe its origianal title to fill was something like a "hemisphere defense platform." Like you said, it wasn't until the B-36 that we had anything like that, and by that time the B-52 wasn't far behind.

You are also right about the planes that fought the war were, for the most part, pre war developments. However, its just interesting to note the early war designs that could evolve or were ahead of their time went on to be modified and dominate the air, while those that were at the limit of their abilities gradually disappear. (Many Japanese aircraft were rather obsolete at the start of the war. Even though the Kate was a better torpedo bomber than the TBD Devistator, it was still a horridly vulenerable plane compared to even the most obsolete aircraft that opposed it. In fact, in the Coral Sea, SBD Dauntlesses were used as ad hoc fighters to shoot down Kates.

But thats Japan. You look at Germany's 109 and see the other end of the spectrum. By the end of the war the 109 was still the fastest climbing combat aircraft in the world (other than the Me-163.) with an impressive speed and firepower, and I believe its prototype first flew in 1933.

The remarkable thing about WW2 aviation isn't how it transformed, but rather how thouroughly it evolved I guess.

Scots, thanks for the input on British Armor development. The U.S. had the same problem. Right up to the start of WW2 there were still people who thought that horse cavalry would have a place on the modern battlefield. Its a shame that the conservativeness that leads some men to the military only hurts that which they serve.

[Scots Grey]

There is of course the irony in my ID as the Scots Greys were the last British Cavalry Regiment to convert to armour from the Horse....in 1941!. OK they were stationed in Iraq at the time but it just reinforces the point that the War Ministry was living in the past

Incidentally has anyone realised that the reason Patton and Monty disliked each other was that they were to much alike.I know that they both wanted to deny Berlin to the Russians even if it meant fighting them

In fact there was a firefight between British and Russian Troops a couple of days before the war ended(the Brits won)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Scots Grey:

There is of course the irony in my ID as the Scots Greys were the last British Cavalry Regiment to convert to armour from the Horse....in 1941!. OK they were stationed in Iraq at the time but it just reinforces the point that the War Ministry was living in the past

This wasn't quite as stupid as it might first appear. These were troops stationed in Palestine at the start of the war, weren't they? As such, they would have been engaged in policing activities, trying to keep the Arabs and Jews off each other's throats. Given the typical terrain they would have had to cover in many cases (hilly, rocky, few or no roads) mounted infantry (which is in effect what the cavalry had been for many decades) was probably the most efficient and economical way to go about it.

On the other hand, it might have been realized at some earlier point that the Wehrmacht represented a greater threat to the Empire than a couple of warring tribes and appropriate commensurate action taken. But that assumes that the necessary equipment to upgrade them had been available, which probably is not the case.

Incidentally has anyone realised that the reason Patton and Monty disliked each other was that they were to much alike.

Well, I know they were both Scorpios. If they didn't have the same birthday, they were close. That should explain everything.

Michael

[ October 13, 2002, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

Even though the Kate was a better torpedo bomber than the TBD Devistator, it was still a horridly vulenerable plane...

Nearly all the Japanese planes were horribly vulnerable. One area of aircraft design where the Japanese really lagged was the ability to produce high-powered engines. As a consequence, they had to strip everything to an absolute minimum in terms of weight to be able to get competitive performance. This meant that planes like the Zero were very maneuverable (at least at low and moderate speeds) and could fly incredibly long distances for the time, but would flame and disintegrate if you managed to put a few bullets into them.

The Allied planes by comparison had enough power to be able fly with greater structural weight, and so were much more rugged and could usually absorb greater battle damage yet remain intact. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 won the air war for the Americans.

Michael

[Scots Grey]

Well it seems that the Books I recommended are out of print but I checked and they might be available through Amazon(it'll cost you though).

The Tank Museum Site is WWW.tankmuseum.org