Any Thoughts Why Germany Was So Prepared for WWII?

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:07:45 -0500

What gave impetus to Germany's revolutionary tactic called Blitzkrieg?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 3:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 15:57:36 -0500

Germany was a Powerhouse for sure. Ready for anything that came their way, except for fighting on several fronts and spreading themselves too thin.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Dec 9 at 2015 4:57 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:57:37 -0500

Look at the battle of Cambrai; the British used a limited/rolling bombardment and launched an all-out attack using tanks to breach the trench lines and "charge" into the German rear.

Unfortunately, British tank reliability was low, and the attack bogged down quickly. It did, however, come pretty close to working.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 5:03 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:03:14 -0500

Primarily because they had been planning the invasion for more than a decade, while the allies naively believed that the war would never happen. They were also the first to put air support control with field units via radio's most other Armies at the time retained control with a higher command causing tactical delay. (Napoleon was the first to use a cannon in combined arms, Hitler used tanks and airplanes) But the primary reason wasn't that Germany was so prepared it's that the French reliance on the Maginot line and the Dyle plan fell right into Germany's Plan resulting in Dunkirk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyle_Plan

Dyle Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dyle Plan or D Plan was the primary war plan of the French Army to stave off the expected German attack during Fall Gelb. It was conceived by French General Maurice Gamelin in 1940. Named after the Dyle River, which flows from southern Belgium down to Antwerp, the main objective of the plan was to halt the advancing German Army Group B, (which was incorrectly perceived as the strongest), in central Belgium. France had signed a military...

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Dec 9 at 2015 5:07 PM

Capt Walter Miller — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:07:51 -0500

Losing to Napoleon prompted the Prussians to revamp their thinking. That is the short answer. The Germans lost WWI, and because of that they cast about for new techniques and new technologies. The French, having won, did not.

Walt

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 9 at 2015 5:38 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 17:38:25 -0500

The German education model for their staff officers and junior leaders was excellent. Ironically (considering how Nazis took power), staff officers were taught to be critical thinkers and they analyzed the lessons of not only from WW1 but conflicts before that and determined why things happened the way they did and worked on solutions to not have it happen again.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 9 at 2015 6:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:19:29 -0500

It is a strange question. They were ready, because they didn't start it until they were ready. They had worked through a depression, and focused on keeping people employed and working on the infrastructure and bettering their military. They were ready - they had the manpower, the know-how, and an ideology that was supported by the people.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 9 at 2015 11:33 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:33:34 -0500

I heard there was this guy named Rommel. Who wrote some book called "Attacks."

Response by PO1 Todd Cousins made Dec 10 at 2015 9:58 AM

PO1 Todd Cousins — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:58:58 -0500

It has to do with the way of thought during this time. They adjusted to the changes in warfare where the west did not.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 10 at 2015 8:57 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:57:47 -0500

I just want folks to be cognizant that the inter-war periods are important for developing new technology and new doctrine. Preparing for future wars is not always easy. Many times nations will mimic past wars like using horses for cavalry in the age of mechanization. The Germans were well prepared for WWII with the tanks and combined arms operations. However, much of the infantry and supplies were drawn by horses.

The Marines got it right. They were on the chopping block before the war, so the Marines stated they will conduct amphibious operations. That was perfect for WWII. The Navy got it right by developing the aircraft carriers, but the Brits failed to see the importance of those ships and eschewed them for battleships. The Air Force lost 45,000 Airmen and around 10,000 bombers on their ill fated strategic bomber runs. It's not easy predicting the future of wars.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 12 at 2015 11:25 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:25:04 -0500

"...Germany did not think Japan would have been the aggressor and thus stalled for over a month." WTF? This statement is untrue: Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec 41!

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 1:48 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:48:07 -0500

The truth is: they weren't! They were 'better' prepared than their enemies with the Schlieffen Plan and the weapons, weapons system and battle field tactics to implement it. Their entire war was built around quick, rapid victory. When that didn't happen, they were doomed! The final nail in their coffin was drove in by Hitler himself when he ended Roosevelt's great dilemma by declaring war on us on 11 Dec 41.