WWII - AIRBORNE OPERATIONS A German Appraisal

[The Watcher]

AIRBORNE OPERATIONS A German Appraisal

PREFACE
This study was written for the Historical Division, EUCOM, by a committee of former German officers. It follows an outline prepared by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Special Staff, United States Army, which is given below:

1. a. A review of German airborne experience in World War II.

b. An appraisal of German successes and failures.

c. Reasons for the apparent abandonment of large-scale German airborne operations after the Crete operation.

2. a. German experience in opposing Allied and Russian airborne operations.

b. An appraisal of the effectiveness of these operations.

3. The probable future of airborne operations.

It is believed that the contributors to this study (listed on page iv) represent a valid cross-section of expert German opinion on airborne operations. Since the contributors include Luftwaffe and Army officers at various levels of command, some divergences of opinion are inevitable; these have been listed and, wherever possible, evaluated by the principal German author. However, the opinions of Generalfeldmarschall Albert Kesselring are given separately and without comment wherever they occur in the course of the presentation.

The reader is reminded that publications of the GERMAN REPORT SERIES were written by Germans and from the German point of view. Organization, equipment, and procedures of the German Army and Luftwaffe differ considerably from those of the United States armed forces.

This study is concerned only with the landing of airborne fighting forces in an area occupied or controlled by an enemy and with the subsequent tactical commitment of those forces in conventional ground combat. The employment of airborne units in commando operations, or in the supply and reinforcement of partisans and insurgents, is not included in this study, nor is the shifting of forces by troop-carrier aircraft in the rear of the combat zone. Such movements, which attained large size and great strategic importance during World War II, should not be confused with tactical airborne operations.

THE CONTRIBUTORS
Generalmajor (Brigadier General) Hellmuth Reinhardt, committee chairman and principal author, was Deputy Chief, General Army Office, 1941-43, and later Chief of Staff, Eighth Army, on the southern front in the Ukraine and Romania.

Contributors on German airborne operations:

Generalleutant (Major General) Werner Ehrig, operations officer of the 22d (Army Air Landing) division during the attack on Holland.

Oberst (Colonel) Freiherr von der Heydte, an outstanding field commander of German parachute troops, author of the "Appendix."

Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Albert Kesselring, commander of the German Second Air Force during the Netherlands campaign, and later Commander in Chief, Southwest.

General der Fallschirmtruppen (Lieutenant General) Eugen Meindl, regimental commander during the attack on Crete, later airborne division and corps commander.

Generalleutant (Major General) Max Pemsel, Chief of Staff, XVIII Corps, which included the ground forces committed in the attack on Crete.

Generaloberst (General) Kurt Student, the chief of German parachute troops during the entire war.

Contributors on Allied airborne operations, and on German defense measures against them:

General der Infanterie (Lieutenant General) Guenther Blumentritt, Chief of Staff, OB West.

Oberst (Colonel) Albert Emmerich, G-3, German First Army.

General der Flakartillerie (Lieutenant General) August Schmidt, in 1944 commander of Luftgau VI, which provided the mobile troops to combat Allied airborne landings at Nijmegen and Arnhem.

General der Kavallerie (Lieutenant General) Siegfried Westphal, the chief of staff of OB Southwest in Sicily and Italy, and later of OB West.

Oberst (Colonel) Fritz Ziegelmann, G-3, 352d Infantry Division.


SOURCE

 

[yasin_khan]

I think the Germans were first who started Air Borne operations in the world by attacking Norway.

 

[tatra]

Many nations experimented with paratroops in the 1930s. Germans were first to deploy in combat, in Norway German paratroops secured airfields for air transports. Next massive landings in Netherlands. Here, some 1300 para's that had dropped around Rotterdam and The Hague (to capture vital bridges, government and royal family) were captured and shipped to Britain, much to the irritation of the Germans who hadn't figured to loose so many of their limited supply of highly trained paratroops permanently. Also, some 250 Ju 52 were lost and badly damaged, the effects of which could still be felt by the time of the invasion of Crete (last major german para landings): shortage of transports.

 

[yasin_khan]

The German Planing was best but they didnt made any reservses.

 

[P.A.F]

if it wasn't for the US then britian and france and the whole of bloody europe whould have been history :alian

 

[srirangan]

I think Russia and Britain played a larger role than the US in beating Germany in continental Europe. Esp Russia, the Brit's put a halt to the German western expansion, whereas the Russians just plain owned the German's with amazing land warfare tactics and strategies.

 

[NewHampshireOne]

Wow!
This is a great site!
I look forward to learning a bit more of the history (in detail) of WW2. So I can develop war gaming senarios for the 'Spearhead' minitures ruleset.
Mostly Western Front battles at the moment. Hedgerow battles!
I figure I will have to grow the collection over time for Eastern Front warfare.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wow!
This is a great site!
I look forward to learning a bit more of the history (in detail) of WW2. So I can develop war gaming senarios for the 'Spearhead' minitures ruleset.
Mostly Western Front battles at the moment. Hedgerow battles!
I figure I will have to grow the collection over time for Eastern Front warfare.

Welcome to DT, We hope you enjoy your visits.

 

[tatra]

if it wasn't for the US then britian and france and the whole of bloody europe whould have been history :alian

Try reading some history books first before you make these kinds of statements. It was the Russians and the Brits that held the Germans at bay long enough for the US war machine to get ready to fight as there simply was very little US military in existence in 1939-1941.

It was the Russian war machine that seriously wore down the German military and the combined US and UK air power that wore down German industry and transportation.

Without those efforts and achievements in the early years there would have been no allied victory, which came when after the full weight of the US war machine was added to that of the Russians onslaught in the East and with landing in various parts of Europe (Italy, Normandy, Southern France).

USSR casualties are about 50 million, US casualties pale in comparison.

 

[turin]

whereas the Russians just plain owned the German's with amazing land warfare tactics and strategies.

Although the Russians employed quite some excellent tactics that was not the decisive reason for most of their victories IMO. Rather more decisive was the manpower they had available (take for example the battle of Kursk) and a military industry that, when finally working, produced an endless stock of material. These two things combined resulted in a fighting force that could be replenished in sheer endless numbers.
The germans on the other hand were able to field perhaps the most effective industry even under the impact of the allied bombing raids. However since such crucial ressources as fuel and rubber were no longer available in sufficient numbers that combined with a lack of additional troops (esp. veteran units) resulted in a no win-situation. Add to this poor leadership by Hitler who took over command from his generals and influenced the course of war to considerable effect with poor decisions and you got Russian troops in Berlin.

All in all I find such comparisons as who had most part in bringing down Germany/the Axis in WW2 rather pointless since there is no answer. The Soviet Union suffered most with whole cities devastated, populations annhiliated. It was their already mentioned manpower and industry that brough down Germany in the east. However the S.U. wouldnt have survived that long if it hadnt been the US who delivered considerable numbers of material for use with the red army earlier in the war. Also they fought against the Japanese on their own thus relieving the Russians in the far east. The Brits were responsible for bringing down the Luftwaffe and its loss of a great number of veteran pilots that would have been more than useful in the later course of the war when enough aircraft such as the Me-262 where available but no or only untrained pilots to fly them. Its an allied victory not that of a single nation and that alliance was necessary since Germany most likely woud have won against any of these nations on their own (winning against the US in this case means complete conquest of Europe without the US being able to prevent it).

just my two cents

 

[Gremlin29]

I think Russia and Britain played a larger role than the US in beating Germany in continental Europe. Esp Russia, the Brit's put a halt to the German western expansion, whereas the Russians just plain owned the German's with amazing land warfare tactics and strategies.

Sri you can't be serious! First of all, and it is an undisputable fact that the Russians and British would have starved without US aid in the first years of the war in europe. True enough the RAF smashed the Luftwaffe to point where it would never totally recover during the Battle of Britain but the the British army was kicked out of europe in 1940 by what could only be described as a complete rout. Likewise the Russians had their butts handed to them big time in 1941 and were it not for the American life line of aid would have caved in. It took the Russians 3 years to totally regain the initiative from the Germans, and that was by a simple stroke of fate. When the allies landed in Sicily Hitler pulled 2 critical divisions from operation Citadel, the 2 divisions that would have expolited the tactical victory they Germans were on the verge of succeeding with. As it was, the loss of those 2 divisions (they were diverted to Italy) forced German command to consolidate their forces, end their offensive and begin preparations for Soviet counterattacks by Armies that were on the verge of being completely destroyed. Had those 2 divisions remained in place, the Russians would have fallen back to their defensive posture and with the massive loss of entire armies success with Citadel would have garnered, their war would have for the most part been lost to the point of no return. Compare Russian losses to German losses, they succeeded only through brute force, and massive numbers of soldiers. The Russians were so tactically and strategically inept it's hard to even fathom. So in reallity, the invasion of Sicily was as much or more responsible for Russian success than anything else.

The strategic air campaign was likewise nearly totally fruitless. Aside from bombing the heck out of Germany, the only real contribution to the war it made was the destruction of the Germans petroleum production. They could have bombed Ploesti like they did, and not dropped another bomb throughout the war with the same effect. German war time production hit an all time high in December of 1944, kinda demonstrates how ineffectual the strategic air campaign was wouldn't you say? Allied air powers greatest weapon were the fighter bombers, who denied the German army freedom of movement AFTER the allies invaded France.

In summary, the critical events leading to allied victory and in order are:

Battle of Britain-Removed the Luftawaffe's superiority and allowed Britain to become the staging point for allied invasion of europe which was trememdously important.

US aid to Russia and the commonwealth-The amount of material supplied is unbelievably staggering.

The Sicily invasion-Pulled 2 critical divisions from the Germans Citadel offensive which was on the verge of a victory that would have bagged so many Russians the war in the East would have been quite different.

Invasion of Europe-Obviously drew even more resources from the eastern front.

Hitler was a horrible tactician, but you have to admit his audacity and refusal to take the conservative approach recommended by his generals early in the war was responsible for Germany's greatest victories.

Getting back on topic, airborne operations proved critical to the Germans and Allies a number of times throughout the war. In all cases the airborne aspect of each operation was successful. Market Garden failed, but that failure fell on the shoulder of regular ground forces...the paratroopers did remarkably well.

 

[redsoulja]

Hitler was a horrible tactician, but you have to admit his audacity and refusal to take the conservative approach recommended by his generals early in the war was responsible for Germany's greatest victories.

well didn't he partially cause german blunders later on in the war?

 

[Gremlin29]

well didn't he partially cause german blunders later on in the war?

Generally speaking Hitler did cause a great deal of blunders. But I think it's interesting to note that time after time he embarked on campaigns against the advice of his general staff which resulted in success. His biggest shortcoming which ultimately cost him the war was his failure to grasp the importance of intercontinental warfare/campaigns and their affect on the war in europe/Russia. In reallity, the German general staff were more of a cause for Germany losing WW2 than Hitler himself. I find it fascinating that there were so many high ranking generals that knew the war would be lost, knew Hitler was evil yet didn't lift a hand to stop him. There were a good number of them that could easily have assasinated him. Amazing that professional soldiers could so easily ask their men to sacrifice their lives in combat, yet not one of them was willing to do the same thing for the sake of their country.

 

[tatra]

Generally speaking Hitler did cause a great deal of blunders. But I think it's interesting to note that time after time he embarked on campaigns against the advice of his general staff which resulted in success. His biggest shortcoming which ultimately cost him the war was his failure to grasp the importance of intercontinental warfare/campaigns and their affect on the war in europe/Russia. In reallity, the German general staff were more of a cause for Germany losing WW2 than Hitler himself. I find it fascinating that there were so many high ranking generals that knew the war would be lost, knew Hitler was evil yet didn't lift a hand to stop him. There were a good number of them that could easily have assasinated him. Amazing that professional soldiers could so easily ask their men to sacrifice their lives in combat, yet not one of them was willing to do the same thing for the sake of their country.

You have to understand the German military's Prussian history, especially in the high command. Most generals didn't want to break the oath to support Hitler that they had sworn. Also, don't forget there was an absolutely ruthless security apparatus in place (Gestapo, SD/SIPO, SS).

Hitler's penchant for forbidding any retreat as well as for looking only at units on paper rather than in terms of quality and power in the field cost the Germans dearly. Stalingrad, for example, would not have happened had the German army been allowed to pull out in time to avoid encirclement. And it is documented how the number of divisions was increased on paper by making existing ones smaller. The new units, intended as make good earlier losses, consisted of a small core of experienced troops fleshed out with poorly trained (6-8 weeks!) second and third rate replacement troops.

 

[ajay_ijn]

In summary, the critical events leading to allied victory and in order are:
Battle of Britain-Removed the Luftawaffe's superiority and allowed Britain to become the staging point for allied invasion of europe which was trememdously important.
US aid to Russia and the commonwealth-The amount of material supplied is unbelievably staggering.
The Sicily invasion-Pulled 2 critical divisions from the Germans Citadel offensive which was on the verge of a victory that would have bagged so many Russians the war in the East would have been quite different.
Invasion of Europe-Obviously drew even more resources from the eastern front.

Oh then what about stalingrad and Kursk,two worst battles for in history of mankind.
Do u think if Sicily was not invaded at that time,would Germany army win kursk?
Ya only kursk nothing else.After german army moves some miles from kursk,millions of russian soldiers and thousands of T-34's will stop german advance.

Germans Citadel offensive which was on the verge of a victory that would have bagged so many Russians the war in the East would have been quite different.

Guy the german Strategy was Blitzkrieg,it needs surprise.
Simple logic for Blitzkrieg,when Surprise is lost then germans would lose.
They lost the surprise in 1941 and after it was only the war of numbers.

US aid to Russia and the commonwealth-The amount of material supplied is unbelievably staggering.

Truly staggering,it was becoz of US,Britain and Russia got critical supplies.
again it was becoz US german U-boats could be defeated.

Even if RAF did not make so many losses for lufwaffe in Battle of britain,US might have managed by destroying lufwaffe.Me-109 was no match for P-52.

The strategic air campaign was likewise nearly totally fruitless. Aside from bombing the heck out of Germany, the only real contribution to the war it made was the destruction of the Germans petroleum production. They could have bombed Ploesti like they did, and not dropped another bomb throughout the war with the same effect. German war time production hit an all time high in December of 1944, kinda demonstrates how ineffectual the strategic air campaign was wouldn't you say? Allied air powers greatest weapon were the fighter bombers, who denied the German army freedom of movement AFTER the allies invaded France.

May be ploesti had little or no defence unilike the German Cities.
German should have got the North Africa,Rommel was genius but he too needs weapons to fight which he did not get.

Allied air powers greatest weapon were the fighter bombers, who denied the German army freedom of movement AFTER the allies invaded France

No only fighter-bombers it was also bombers for tactical missions which supported US army at every city in 1944.
Even if Strategic Bombing did not met with much sucess,on a whole we can US Air-Power was the real weapon for US in defeating Axis.

 

[Gremlin29]

Oh then what about stalingrad and Kursk,two worst battles for in history of mankind.
Do u think if Sicily was not invaded at that time,would Germany army win kursk?
Ya only kursk nothing else.After german army moves some miles from kursk,millions of russian soldiers and thousands of T-34's will stop german advance.

Stalingrad was not so pivotal as it was destructive. As for Citadel, yes I think that the Germans may have either won the battle, or held the Russians off for another 2 full years which could have had all sorts of outcomes on the war. This is not a fresh idea/invention of my own and is a popular belief amongst historians/analysts.

Guy the german Strategy was Blitzkrieg,it needs surprise.
Simple logic for Blitzkrieg,when Surprise is lost then germans would lose.
They lost the surprise in 1941 and after it was only the war of numbers.

Actually, Blitzkrieg is defined by combined arms and the air/land battle. Surprise is an element in any type of modern warfare, but it's not demonstrative of Blitzkrieg.

Truly staggering,it was becoz of US,Britain and Russia got critical supplies.
again it was becoz US german U-boats could be defeated.

The U-boats wasn't neutralized until 1943, until then they operated with great success and up through 1942 very nearly with impunity.

Even if RAF did not make so many losses for lufwaffe in Battle of britain,US might have managed by destroying lufwaffe.Me-109 was no match for P-52.

Operation Sea Lion (Germanys invasion of Britain) was cancelled because the Luftwaffe failed to destroy the RAF. If the RAF had been destroyed, the Germans would have invaded Britain and I think the Brits would have capitulated as post war analysis of British coastal defenses proved them to be nearly non-existant. Without Britain, the US had zero offensive air war capabilities, and hardly a practical way to fight the Germans on european soil.

May be ploesti had little or no defence unilike the German Cities.
German should have got the North Africa,Rommel was genius but he too needs weapons to fight which he did not get.

Strategic bombing was ineffective for a whole host of reasons. Most of Germanys industrial cities were totally destroyed yet the Germans fought on. Even large cities with little or no strategic value were completely destroyed yet the Germans fought on. The point is, strategic bombing supposedly stopped the Germans from producing war material but in fact, aside from petrol and rubber (the Germans actually figured out how to make suitable synthetics of both products but they were still critically short), the Germans were capable of producing more and more goods as the war progressed the pinnacle of production being December of 1944. Obviously, strategic bombing didn't do what it was supposed to do.

Rommel was a genius, the most respected general of WW2 in my eyes. He did much with practically nothing in Afrika. The campaign in Africa was designed to tie up the allies, with a secondary and somewhat ambitious goal of capturing Iranian oil fields, and opening a gateway to asia. The whole of the campaign was a diversion however because Hitler failed to initiate the campaign sooner and failed to sieze upon the importance of dominance in that region.

 

[ajay_ijn]

Stalingrad was not so pivotal as it was destructive

But what many people say is Stalingrad was a shock was german army and complete destruction of german sixth army.
I found ou the if germans had one and only one C-5 galaxy aircraft,they would have won the stalingrad .

Actually, Blitzkrieg is defined by combined arms and the air/land battle. Surprise is an element in any type of modern warfare, but it's not demonstrative of Blitzkrieg.

Becoz of Surprise they occupied so much Soviet lands in 1941(stalin did not expect german attack)
Even france never thought that the attack would come from Sedan which can be considered as surprise but speed of Panzer divisions was more decisive.

The U-boats wasn't neutralized until 1943, until then they operated with great success and up through 1942 very nearly with impunity.

What i said was US played a major role in defeating the U-boats,
They provided 50 old destroyers to RN during initial stages of atlantic war.
They had build Massive numbers of CVE for USN and RN to fight with german U-boats.
They had build large number of escort destroyers.
Even if u see numbers US sunk more number of U-boats than Birtain.

Without Britain, the US had zero offensive air war capabilities, and hardly a practical way to fight the Germans on european soil.

Ya,Britain was important base but USAF could have managed to destroy Luftwaffe even if Battle of britain did not happen.

 

[Gremlin29]

Becoz of Surprise they occupied so much Soviet lands in 1941(stalin did not expect german attack)
Even france never thought that the attack would come from Sedan which can be considered as surprise but speed of Panzer divisions was more decisive.

I would argue that German success in Russia was attributed to 2 things in general, 1. German tactics and training 2. Soviet ineptitude. France held 100 divisions near the German border, I don't think they were surprised by the attack. In fact, for many weeks they had solid HUMINT that not only were the Germans were preparing to attack but from what direction, and with what divisions. Again, German tactics and training prevailed over a stronger but tactically inferior enemy.

Ya,Britain was important base but USAF could have managed to destroy Luftwaffe even if Battle of britain did not happen.

My point was, without having the physical location of Britain from which to stage aircraft, the USAAF had no means to mount a physical offensive against the Germans. If the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain, the Germans would have successfully invaded and occupied Britain at which point there would have been no USAAF offinsive.

 

[ajay_ijn]

My point was, without having the physical location of Britain from which to stage aircraft, the USAAF had no means to mount a physical offensive against the Germans. If the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain, the Germans would have successfully invaded and occupied Britain at which point there would have been no USAAF offinsive.

Italy??
It was from italy USAF Bombed German oil installations in Romania.
One doubt why didn't Germany Diverted some of its Aircraft for bombing RN in British Harbours during 1940.
agreed that the main aim was to destroy RAF.
But Battleships could be bombed while luftwaffe was bombing on British Coastal Merchant Shipping in july 1940.
Instead of bombing Merchant ships they could have targetted Battleships and Cruisers which provided escort for Merchant Ships So that U-boats could prey for Merchant ships Easily.
Even in North African Campaign,Luftwaffe inflicted heavy losses British War Convoys.
While If u see RAF,It countinously bombed German Pocket Battleships to force them to go back for repairs.

The strategy of luftwaffe could be to inflict losses on RN Surface Warships and allow U-boats and Naval Aircraft to Merchant Shipping.

France held 100 divisions near the German border, I don't think they were surprised by the attack.

Surprised of their Speed and they did not expect attack Sedan.Anything New will always surprise.
May be this is the only Invasion in the world,in which equal Force or Slightly Inferior Force(German) Defeated a Country(France) which had more Capability only due to one reason and that is BLITZKRIEG.

 

[Gremlin29]

Italy??
It was from italy USAF Bombed German oil installations in Romania.
One doubt why didn't Germany Diverted some of its Aircraft for bombing RN in British Harbours during 1940.
agreed that the main aim was to destroy RAF.
But Battleships could be bombed while luftwaffe was bombing on British Coastal Merchant Shipping in july 1940.
Instead of bombing Merchant ships they could have targetted Battleships and Cruisers which provided escort for Merchant Ships So that U-boats could prey for Merchant ships Easily.
Even in North African Campaign,Luftwaffe inflicted heavy losses British War Convoys.
While If u see RAF,It countinously bombed German Pocket Battleships to force them to go back for repairs.

Bear with me on this. Going back to something I said earlier, perhaps Hitlers biggest personal liability was that he failed to grasp the importance of intercontinental warfare. Africa was more important to the Germans then Hitler was willing to reallize, or admit. Without using Africa as a base of operations the success in Sicily, and then onto Italy for the allies would not have ocurred. Hitler was urged to capture Malta as it was rightly seen as a way for the German navy to tie up the mediteranean. He refused to see the significance of the mediteranean, and of the whole campaign outside of europe proper. So, first comes the eventually allied success in Africa which allowed them to then jump off to Sicily and later Italy. Italy was never really fully taken from the Germans, they were still effectively fighting when the war ended. Naturally the allies didn't commit total resources to Italy, but neither had the Germans. Without Sicily/Italy, once again we are back to having no practical means for the Americans to mount an air offensive.

France was not surprised by the German attack. They knew when and where it would be coming. What caused Frances defeat was inferior tactical skills (they had lots of tanks, but their tanks were attached piecemeal to infantry regiments as support only and were not maneuvering elements) and their total inability to mobilize a cohesive military strategy because of the 800 political parties jockeying for position. It's a real indictment to pre-war French politicians who were more worried about their politicial ambitions than the Germans taking them over.