|
|
Death of the WehrmachtBy Robert M. Citino | MHQ | Single Page | 8 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post The image of two punch-drunk fighters is one of the oldest clichés in military history, but perfectly describes what was happening. It was a question of reserves, physical and mental: Who would better stand the strain in one of the century's great mano a mano engagements? It had it all: bitter cold, swirling snowstorms, and a majestic wall of mountains and glaciers standing watch in the background. The road network failed both sides, so columns had to crowd onto branch roads where they were easy prey for enemy fighter-bombers. Rarely have Stukas and Sturmoviks had a more productive set of targets, and the losses on both sides were terrible. By November 3, the 13th Panzer Division had fought its way over the highlands and was a mere two kilometers from Ordzhonikidze. By now, a handful of battalions was carrying the fight to the enemy, bearing the entire weight of the German campaign in the Caucasus. For the record, they were the 2nd of the 66th Regiment (II/66th) on the left, II/93rd on the right, with I/66th echeloned to the left rear. Deployed behind the assault elements were the I/99th Alpenjäger, the 203rd Assault Gun Battalion, and the 627th Engineer Battalion. The engineers' mission was crucial: to rush forward and open the Georgian Military Road the moment Ordzhonikidze fell. Over the next few days, German gains were measured in hundreds of meters: six hundred on November 4, a few hundred more on November 5. By now, it had become a battle of bunker-busting, with the German assault formations having to chew their way through dense lines of fortifications, bunkers, and pillboxes. Progress was slow, excruciatingly so, but then again the attackers didn't have all that far to go. Overhead the Luftwaffe thundered, waves of aircraft wreaking havoc on the Soviet front line and rear, and pounding the city itself. Mackensen's reserves were spent, used up a week earlier, in fact. It must have been inconceivable to him that the Soviets were not suffering as badly or worse. But Mackensen was wrong. On November 6, the Soviets launched a counterattack, their first real concentrated blow of the entire Terek campaign, against the 13th Panzer's overextended spearhead. Mixed groups of infantry and T-34 tanks easily smashed through the paper-thin German flank guards and began to close in behind the mass of the division itself, in the process scattering much of its transport and cutting off its combat elements from their supply lines. Supporting attacks against the German left tied up the 23rd Panzer Division and the Romanian 2nd Mountain Division just long enough to keep them from coming to 13th Panzer's assistance. There were no German reserves, and for the next three days, heavy snowstorms kept the Luftwaffe on the ground. Indeed, the 13th Panzer only had the strength for one last blow—to the west, as it turned out—to break out of the threatened encirclement. After some shifting of units, including the deployment of the 5th SS-Panzer Division Wiking in support, the order went out on November 9. The first convoy out of the pocket used tanks to punch a hole, followed by a convoy of trucks filled with the wounded. Within two days, a badly mauled 13th Panzer was back on the German side of the lines. The drive on Ordzhonikidze had failed, as had the drive on the oil fields of Grozny, and, indeed, the Caucasus campaign itself. But how close it had been! Consider the numbers. Take a German army group of five armies and reduce it to three, and then to two. Give it an absurd assignment, say a 700-mile drive at the end of a 1,200-mile supply chain, against a force of eight enemy armies, in the worst terrain in the world. Wear down its divisions to less than 50 percent of their strength, both in men and tanks. Then make it 33 percent. Feed them a hot meal perhaps once a week. Remove them from the control of their professional officer corps and put them into the hands of a lone amateur strategist. Throw them into sub-zero temperatures and two feet of snow. Add it all up, and what do you get? Not, surprisingly, an inevitable defeat, but a hard-driving panzer corps, stopped but still churning its legs, less than two kilometers from its strategic objective. Karl von Clausewitz was right about one thing: war is, indeed, "the realm of uncertainty." [continued on next page] Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: 20th - 21st Century, Historical Conflicts, MHQ, World War II
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
8 Comments to “Death of the Wehrmacht”
How the Allies eventually learned how to deal with the Wehrmacht is comparable to how Bonnie and Clyde were eventually dealt with. When the posse leader was told that he never gave them a chance, the leader replied, "They were too good to be given a chance."
By paul penrod on Nov 17, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The recently published third volume by Richard Evans, "The Third Reich at War", contains fascinating information which contextualizes this very good review article. Instead of offering a blow-by-blow account of the Russian campaign, Evans focuses upon the social and cultural themes which of course gave invasion of Slavic lands its barbaric nature. The barbarism practiced at literally all levels of the Germans involved in the campaign became one of the most important reasons why the Third Reich ultimately failed in such a spectacular and definitive manner.
By Phil on Dec 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
While the Wehrmacht was making its easternmost advance in the Caucuses, on the western periphery of the Greater Reich there was mundane construction work. The result of this, however accelerated the demise of Germany by anywhere from 6 months to a year or more. Fixed fortifications were an anathema in the German doctrine of mobile warfare. From their own experience when fighting against them, the knew that they were vulnerable and could be bested, yet they pinned their hopes on the Atlantic Wall to stop Overlord. Circumstances in the Med caused them to buy into this even more. After all, hadn't the Germans almost thrown the Allies into the sea at Anzio? Germany's underestimation of what was going to thrown against them in the channel crossing was as glaring of an intelligence error as their miscalculation of Soviet military strength in 1941. Rommel had a clue, having dealt with the punishing allied air power in the Med, but even he couldn't comprehend that there was no way that the Panzers could throw the Allies back into the Sea-He was half correct in the positional defense measures he employed. Conversely, Runstedt half of being correct involved making the fight inland and out of naval gunfire range, but wrong in engaging with mobile forces. There were not enough panzer forces to cover both fronts, so Peter the east was robbed to pay Paul in the west. The Atlantic Wall forced the Germans into this situation. With no Atlantic Wall the sensible approach would be to mass the panzers in the east , where there was more natural tank country and room for a mobile elastic defense and counterattack oppurtunities. although the VVVS (Red Air Force) had improved , it had nowhere approached the USAAF or RAF in the damage it could do on ground targets. Panzer unit strength and mass could be maintained and not leached away by the constant shuttling-But now what avout the West?
By paul penrod on Jan 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Yes, what about the west,now with no Atlantic Wall and no major panzer formations….. German leadership could fall upon two previous experiences: their defensive measures of World War I, much of it on the same ground, and the fact that they should expect to be on the opposite end of what they experienced in 1940 in France. A series of defensive arcs, built around natural features and built up areas as strongpoints and festungs, manned with the volksgrenadiers, kreigsmarine coastal gunners and Luftwaffe flak and field units that otherwise would have been smashed or demolished on the coast would man these arcs, supported in key areas by higher echelon combat forces. The would be oriented to stop anyone using the road systems and bring Allied mobility to a crawl. These would be established in depth forming conectric arcs from the bocage to the Seine. In these regions to objective was to force a meat-grinder, infantry style war based on mines, mortars Mg 42s, anti tank guns and field artillery. Aside from STg and SP anti tank gun contingents there would not be a turreted German tank on this front The various lines would be able to absorb or make very time -consuming any Cobra or Goodwood type of operation and providing fewer targets for Allied Air Forces. This front secraemed out for Kesselring or a Heinrici as commander-The political implications next
By paul penrod on Jan 21, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Germany's only chance to survive involved splitting the alliance. To do that they would have to draw out the war as long as possible and force the Allies to pay too high of a price for unconditional surrender. The personalities and situations of the three major Allies had to be taken into account. Stalin, always suspicious that the west would make a separate peace and only fight "to the last Russian" Reading the intelligence reports and seeing that the German elite panzer units were arrayed against the Red Army in the east, while tha Allies were getting nowhere in France would only fuel his paranoia. The British and Commonwealth leadership would be aghast at refighting the same meatgrinder battles on virtually the same sites as they occurred in the Great War. It might cause them to ask FDR to rethink "unconditional surrender" Even DeGaulle may recoil at the prospect of large tracts of France turned into a moonscape for a second time. The pivotal element here is the US and FDR. 1944 was an election year. Would he take the chance and try to win the war by any means possible or play it safe until the election was over? Would Eisenhower and Bradley get impatient and plan ill-advised operations out of expediency? If 1944 turns to 1945 and the Allies haven't reached Paris yet, and if the Russians have been checked in the east, could it boil down to whether or not Paul Tibbetts will have Hiroshima as his target, or Magdeburg??
By paul penrod on Jan 28, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Thus, the surviving bunkers, flak towers and emplacements of the Atlantic Wall today serve as monuments to a rapid Allied Victory in Europe.
By paul penrod on Jan 28, 2010 at 2:24 pm