|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 8, 2024 19:51:11 GMT
Would it make sense if the Wehrmacht had divided its available panzer forces into not four (as IOTL), but five or six groups? That'd allow them the fight bigger encirclement battles (think Bialystok-Minsk) not only by Army Group Center, but also in the North and South. The South would be especially interesting, since it'd allow them to advance much faster there.
But would this make sense in a military way, or would it make the panzer groups too weak? And even if not, would the Wehrmacht generals think so?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on May 8, 2024 19:54:27 GMT
Would it make sense if the Wehrmacht had divided its available panzer forces into not four (as IOTL), but five or six groups? That'd allow them the fight bigger encirclement battles (think Bialystok-Minsk) not only by Army Group Center, but also in the North and South. The South would be especially interesting, since it'd allow them to advance much faster there. But would this make sense in a military way, or would it make the panzer groups too weak? And even if not, would the Wehrmacht generals think so?
Still have a certain Corporal in charge who will decide where they will be used. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 8, 2024 20:48:33 GMT
Would it make sense if the Wehrmacht had divided its available panzer forces into not four (as IOTL), but five or six groups? That'd allow them the fight bigger encirclement battles (think Bialystok-Minsk) not only by Army Group Center, but also in the North and South. The South would be especially interesting, since it'd allow them to advance much faster there. But would this make sense in a military way, or would it make the panzer groups too weak? And even if not, would the Wehrmacht generals think so?
Still have a certain Corporal in charge who will decide where they will be used. Of course, but after all we're talking about AltHist here (the other AH too...). |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on May 9, 2024 8:34:19 GMT
Would it make sense if the Wehrmacht had divided its available panzer forces into not four (as IOTL), but five or six groups? That'd allow them the fight bigger encirclement battles (think Bialystok-Minsk) not only by Army Group Center, but also in the North and South. The South would be especially interesting, since it'd allow them to advance much faster there.
But would this make sense in a military way, or would it make the panzer groups too weak? And even if not, would the Wehrmacht generals think so?
Definitely an interesting idea. They had already weakened the individual divisions by cutting their armour pretty much in half to get double the number. Plus that would need enough good commanders and for each drive deep into enemy territory you also need air and other support and more paths for the foot infantry to follow up those drives to hold ground so your duplicating a lot else as well. Plus given the sheer size of the Soviet forces and toughness of some of their armoured units it might see the weaker armoured units suffering more heavily which could be critical later in the campaign.
On the other hand given the horrendous mess the Red Army was in terms of organisation, morale etc. and its own supreme command [Stalin] something like this might make a big difference in the early part of the campaign. I think more in the south than in the north where the terrain seemed to limit opportunities more.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on May 9, 2024 10:02:32 GMT
Interesting idea BUT - AG South already had mostly half the Mobile Divisions! 5 Panzer and 4 Army/SS Motorized of the 20 1/3 (plus one in Finland) on 22 June 1941 employed.
2. Panzer Div still refitting, 5. Pz in Greece or enroute and 15. Pz in NAfrica.
The Motorized Division had had one Regiment removed to make for more flexible units (British Armour used a two Brigade+Support org.) thus able to build five more - the SS Motorized had 3 regiments each.
As stevep point to heavier losses may be incurred as smaller units would not be able to make the huge pockets and be able to hold for the Infantry to march up for the kill. Thus it might more resemble smaller advances to not risk the Panzer being cut off themselves! OTOH losing such a force early during Barbarossa would make for Hitler messing even more from the start making things even more difficult for the Germans!
Looking at the learnng curve of the Germans (no I didn't get staff-training) in Poland they had one real Motorized Corps Guderians who really knew what to do with armoured. In AG North there was another two Panzer Division equivalents.
In AG South it was one other Corps with one Pz and one Light Division and another with one Pz and one Motorized SS-regiment but the rest was scattered within the Armies.
France - Fall Gelb - saw the use of a combined Pz and SS-Motorized Divisions in Netherland and a Corps of two Pz Divisions in Belgium. The bulk of the Pz and all Motorized Divisions had been put in one Group of Kleist to do the big envelopment. It worked not least due to Luftwaffe supporting the advance.
France - Fall Rot - saw the use of two Pz Groups. Guderians which had four Pz Divisions and no Motorized cutting off the Maginot Line troops from retreat while AG C did a frontal attack and Kleist having six Pz and all the Motorized for the drive along the Channel coast and into France. It worked too.
Russia - Barbarossa - as stevep point to the Pz Divisions had had the no of tanks halved to double the no of Divisions but found a paper by Nigel Askey writing that it wasn't a bad thing as the Pz would carry the Infantry along to secure ground taken.
Besides weather and running out of logistics (Kiyv?) Luftwaffe had no more aircraft than over France (Williamsom Murray) so would be less of an advantage.
Pro's and con's.
I think the real German problem would be that with smaller Pz Groups they get smaller pockets making for more Soviet troops getting out and rebuild and thus with more lines to crack it all gets worse. Losing a Pz Group wouldn't help the Germans as Hitler might well take over himself as CO(!) So if a close call of a Pz Group being itself encircled OKH would see to not having them advance too far of the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on May 11, 2024 20:55:17 GMT
If the panzers were scattered, then uniting them seems like a smart thing. And here I thought that this rather was a mistake the Allies (until 1940!) made.
IOTL, there definitely was the problem, esp. in the south, that they forced the Red Army to retreat, but couldn't encircle them as they did at Bialystok-Minsk. Kiev only became possible after Army Group Center had to give panzers to the South.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 20, 2024 18:03:45 GMT
*bump*
A variation: What if they had used four panzer groups as IOTL, but given two of those to AGS instead of AGC? On the one hand, there were more Redarmists there (also, because the Soviets expected that the main thrust would happen here - makes sense), OTOH the Wehrmacht might make way more prisoners either.
Would ITTL Kirponos or even Budjonny be blamed in the same way as Dmitri Pavlov was IOTL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Aug 23, 2024 22:23:21 GMT
|
|
