Hitler's military mistakes

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,056
Student wasn't the only one who planned Crete. I love how you jumped onto Wikipedia in the 5 minutes since my last post. Now go read who else was involved from within the Wehrmacht in planning that operation, including those who outranked Student.

Now tell me which one of them outranked Kesselring and would have been able to pressure/bully him into conducting an operation in a way he didn't want to do it.

There was one person. His name was Rommel.
My source was not wikipedia.

Rank does not always decide who does what.

Student planned the paratoop opertaions in crete. the Paratrooper were not even part of the army. they were outside the normal chain of command.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,317
Aorund 172 AA guns. Enough for the small area defended. The German air offensive did not reduce the AA guns.



The e Land area of Normandy was much much greater than that of Malta. Your math is fundamentally flawed.
Sure Normandy is greater than Malta, France is even greater and nazi occupied Europe even more so.... But what is important for a defender is frontage... especially in a situation when you must keep the attacker from establishing a beach head at any cost....
 
May 2017
144
Monterrey
50% was acceptable. How do I know this for a fact?

BECAUSE GERMANY WON THE BATTLE OF CRETE
Why would you think that makes the losses acceptable? Especially since the whole experience meant that the Germans luanched no more such operations. Your logic is completely flawed; and besides you did not answer any of the points raised.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,056
50% was acceptable. How do I know this for a fact?

BECAUSE GERMANY WON THE BATTLE OF CRETE
You are missing the piont. The Paratroopers took very heavy caualties in a few places on cerete because they jumped into contested areas. 50% overall but as I shown those that jumped on top of teh enemey directly into combat suffered horribly, 80%-90% in 20 minutes. Given the small area no where on malata is going to be outside AA rnage. teh AA defences of Malta were so much better than crete and much more concentrated into a small area.
 
Jul 2016
9,304
USA
My source was not wikipedia.

Rank does not always decide who does what.

Student planned the paratoop opertaions in crete. the Paratrooper were not even part of the army. they were outside the normal chain of command.
Student only planned part of the total invasion, he commanded the airborne forces. He did not command the naval forces, nor the overall Luftwaffe forces. Did he get what he wanted? No.

I didn't write anything about the Heer, I said Wehrmacht, which includes the Luftwaffe, which Student was a member of.

Kesselring was also in the Luftwaffe, outranking all in not only rank but command. Meanwhile, with Crete, they had a short time and limited forces to toss together a plan based on very faulty info (the British will to fight), figured it was going to be a cake walk, and paid for it.

By 1942 the Germans had learned a few lessons, and one of them was the need sometimes to take heavy casualties to take important objectives (which Crete was not one of).
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,056
Sure Normandy is greater than Malta, France is even greater and nazi occupied Europe even more so.... But what is important for a defender is frontage... especially in a situation when you must keep the attacker from establishing a beach head at any cost....
Total square miles of the German depoymnet in normanday. AA guns per square miles copare to malta. Chances of paratroopers getting shot by AA compare and contrast.
 
Jul 2016
9,304
USA
Why would you think that makes the losses acceptable? Especially since the whole experience meant that the Germans luanched no more such operations. Your logic is completely flawed; and besides you did not answer any of the points raised.
Because they won. They showed up, they took losses, and those losses were acceptable because they still allowed the unit to complete the objective.

The Germans launched numerous operations after that, just no major airborne operations. That had more to do with lack of transport aircraft, serving elsewhere ferrying supplies to panzer divisions in combat, than it did regarding usefulness of airborne forces as a whole.

Again, every mention of the shock of losses at Crete must absolutely be taken in the context of when they happened. Which was before the meat grinder of the invasion of the Soviet Union. By the time they wanted to invade Malta the following year, Germany had already lost hundreds of thousands of troops in combat. Hitler was willingly throwing away entire divisions in holding actions. If taking Malta meant a major strategic and operational advantage (it did), he'd have been willing to take losses.

This is all moot. The operation was already planned to be done. It would have happened regardless if you think the casualties would have been acceptable or not. The only reason it didn't was because Rommel's advance drained the supplies and air support that would have been needed for it.