Hitler's military mistakes

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,533
#22
It was due to Hitler's refusal in part that he lost. And the Allies' numerical and materiel advantages, which he couldn't control.
What refusal ?

Also the allies superiority was even bigger for D Day, so again why would one listen to Rommel ? Plus Erwin had never thrown back an amphibious landing while Rundstedt at least had the Dieppe success going for him
 
Oct 2018
134
Sweden
#23
How would one determine that it was better to listen to Rommel (a man who had lost a whole army in North Africa) than to Von Runstedt ?
We know that the panzer divisions were completely massacred by airpower and artillery including ship guns so they panzer counterattack was demolished. They needed to be closer to the beaches to have a decisive impact.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,714
Sydney
#24
Case Blue , right idea wrong direction
everybody talk about the need for oil but Germany fought on for nearly three years without Baku
taking Moscow would isolate Leningrad , force the soviets to totally commit their forces in a meat grinding battle

a subsequent descent of the Volga to Astrakan would have isolated the Caucasus to be picked off during the winter
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,714
Sydney
#26
I suppose the idea was to fight an holding action to keep Italy in the war

Hitler was convinced that the US Army was incompetent , a belief he shared with Montgomery and a fair few casual observers

El Alamein could be understood as holding for too long , too far , against a slow overwhelming build-up of the Eight Army
keeping the line in Tunisia would reverse the logistic situation , a strong defensive line could hold the British for more than six months at least

This turned to be wrong due to Monty very fast advance with his forces in good fighting shape ,
air war supremacy was a big plus for the allies
in spite of blunders , zero fighting experience ,misguided doctrine and some miserable leadership , the Americans did not crumble but took their losses

with insight , those men and equipment would probably have been better used by keeping them in Sicily
 
Jul 2016
9,560
USA
#27
It was due to Hitler's refusal in part that he lost. And the Allies' numerical and materiel advantages, which he couldn't control.
Rommel and Rundstedt both were wrong. There weren't enough panzer divisions in OB West to do what Rommel wanted, to station enough of them next to every major landing spot for a quick and decisive counterattack against the landing beaches. And the defenses at the beaches was absolutely not good enough (outside Calais, besides Omaha Beach). And Rundstedt was wrong because he never accounted with what it was like to fight without air superiority, never having done so in his professional career as a general.

Hitler made a compromise decision. And it wasn't terrible. They lost because the Allies did the impossible, landing that many forces, with that many supplies, with that much air support, with that much follow on forces in the pipeline, was something the Germans couldn't even contemplate. All of them, top to bottom, were chomping at the bit waiting for the Allies to land, thinking it would be a quick victory, they could shift the better divisions to the OstFront as a reserve to be used for a new late summer '44 offensive.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,714
Sydney
#28
There wasn't that many suitable place for a landing in force , Belgium coast , Normandy were the best bet
I thought the German response was too slow for something they were expecting for more than a year
 
Jul 2016
9,560
USA
#29
There wasn't that many suitable place for a landing in force , Belgium coast , Normandy were the best bet
I thought the German response was too slow for something they were expecting for more than a year
I think there were four realistic spots if you took out direct attempts to assault a port. Only Calais and Normandy were serious.