Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
The German airborne assault on Crete
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
How come the Germans and the Allies came to completely different conclusions on this famous battle. The Germans vowed never to repeat such a thing again as the casulties were so high despite completing their objectives but the Allies became convinced of airborne assault as a decisive tactic and put it into operation with unfortunate results at Arnhem.
-
Message 2
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
But before Arnhem, they were put into use in Normandy... without these actions, overlord may well have failed.
-
Message 3
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
But before Arnhem, they were put into use in Normandy... without these actions, overlord may well have failed.Β
A lot of the airborne troops at Normandy were used for diversionary purposes though rather than being the main vital part of the operation despite undoubtedly taking some key objectives. It was the primary tactic at Arnhem but it failed leading to the failure of the overall plan. -
Message 4
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Was it not the case that the landings on Crete were anticipated and against dug in defenders who knew it was coming? Uder these circumstances casualties were always going to be heavy.
Arnhem should have seem a surprise landing against poorly equipped and prepared defenders, an area paratroops are highly able to capitalise upon? -
Message 5
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Was it not the case that the landings on Crete were anticipated and against dug in defenders who knew it was coming? Uder these circumstances casualties were always going to be heavy.
Arnhem should have seem a surprise landing against poorly equipped and prepared defenders, an area paratroops are highly able to capitalise upon?Β
You certainly have a point about the surprise element. Since the Germans weren't always fussy about casualties i'm surprised they used that as the main reason to not carry out future airborne assaults on a large scale. -
Message 6
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Could it be anything to do with the fact that German paras were part of the Luftwaffe rather than the army?
-
Message 7
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Could it be anything to do with the fact that German paras were part of the Luftwaffe rather than the army?Β
Another good point. The Luftwaffe had plenty of things to occupy itself especially when things started to go wrong in Russia. -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
This has no bearing on the subjrct, but may raise a smile. Some years ago, a man in Liverpool rang the local radio station and said to the woman who answered. "A junkers 52 has just gone over my house."
"What's a Junkers 52?" She asked.
"A Second World War German Transport aircraft."
"Oh I don't think so." She replied.
"Listen love the last time I saw one of those, bastards with guns were jumping out of them, and shooting at me on Crete. You don't forget a 52 in a hurry."
He was right. It had been bought from the Spanish Air Force, and was on its way to Texas. Via England Iceland Green Land Canada. and was calling in at Liverpool Air Port for fuel.
Fred -
Message 9
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
But before Arnhem, they were put into use in Normandy... without these actions, overlord may well have failed.Β
A lot of the airborne troops at Normandy were used for diversionary purposes though rather than being the main vital part of the operation despite undoubtedly taking some key objectives. It was the primary tactic at Arnhem but it failed leading to the failure of the overall plan. Β
I would disagree with that... The airbourne assaults were a key component of the overall plan... -
Message 10
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Speaking off the top of my head wasn't it Hitler / Goering who refused to allow any future airborne landings? To claim that either of these (at the time) could have learnt any rational lesson is stretching it. (I paraphrase as Goering seems to have come round a bit in mid 1945).
Both learnt the same lesson I think, that a landing unsupported by conventional ground troops was going to be too costly. (Okay, the Germans did want to support Crete, but were unable to do so, thanks to the Royal Navy).
Thus in Sicilly, at Salerno the 82nd Airborne proved that paratroops still had a part to play, emphasised at D day that an airborne force, supported by conventional troops could pay dividends.
Cheers AA. -
Message 11
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
The Germans used Paratroopers extensively in the early years of the war, predominantly while they were on the offensive.
e.g. in Poland in 1939, to capture airfields in Denmark and Norway in 1940 and in the Netherlands also in 1940 to capture key bridges and fortifications etc.
Albeit they did suffer heavy losses while taking Crete as has been mentioned, nonetheless they did take the Island and force the British retreat. Personally I think the use of paratrooopers for both the Allies and Axis was key in a lot of successful WWII operations. -
Message 12
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Just my thoughts on it but perhaps the Germans never really needed to use them after Crete. The push east across open Russian steppe in 1941 was so fast that large scale parachute operations would have added little to the mechanized assault. Given parachute drops are only useful on the offensive, some of the switch would be down to the change to the Allies going on the attack and with air superiority.
Is there anywhere Fallschirmjager could have helped? Especially given the need for good weather.
Allied paratroops also played a major role in the crossing of the Rhine. -
Message 13
Posted by SerjeantWildgoose - Bandmaster of Noel Conroy's 1-Shot Showband (U3028801) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Hitler was appalled at the losses incurred by the German airborne forces in Crete. This was not sentimentality, but he recognised that the highest calibre of soldiers were concentrated the Falchirmjaeger and he could ill afford to loose them in such numbers for such limited gains. Crete was an exercise in proving the art of the possible and in terms of grand strategy was little more than an unnecessary diversion from the main effort in Russia. Hitler personally directed that no further airborne operations would be mounted on such a scale.
The Falchirmjaeger continued to draw on the best of German manpower and proved a formidable opponent right up to the end of the war. It was German paratroopers who put up such stubborn resistance against all the odds at Cassino. -
Message 14
Posted by Researcher 2922573 (U2922573) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Was it not something to do with the germans paratrooper parachute harness . that may be resulted in bad landing on Crete. that resulted in so many casulties. How come the Germans and the Allies came to completely different conclusions on this famous battle. The Germans vowed never to repeat such a thing again as the casulties were so high despite completing their objectives but the Allies became convinced of airborne assault as a decisive tactic and put it into operation with unfortunate results at Arnhem.Β
-
Message 15
Posted by CakeMix (U3231764) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Let's not forget Market Garden was the LARGEST airborne op in history. Hugely difficult to pull off the first time as such a scale had never been done before.
Let me add about the Fallschirmjager Paratroops op's from a history buff:
Crete - Heavy casualties. The invasion could have failed unless the Germans noticed that some hills near the Canea airport are poorly defended. They stormed and took the hills.
Controlling this modest higher ground was enough to enable risky but successful landings of German reinforcements in the airport, which slowly let them stabilize their position, bring in more reinforcements, and eventually conquer Crete.
Alamein - Brigade nearly destroyed in battle. In Tunis nearly completely unsuccessful with most going into captivity.
Cassino - A remarkable defense but not surprising given that they held the high ground. Look at any field manual on this. Whoever holds the high ground holds the favor in battle (Turks at Gallipoli). Terrain is a major factor here. All in all I believe Italy to be the best showing of FJ during WW2.
Normandy - again defensive actions. I will mention one town, Carentan. They didnt hold.
Ardennes - scattered drop, poor training, lack of veterans, etc. Von der Heydte called this 'The Suicide Operation' he was so against it. Skorzeny deserves the credit here not FJ for causing the confusion.
Plenty of units from the Luftwaffe fought on all fronts in the war. Luftwaffe and FJ were not peculiar in this. I think FJ were simply misused in a lot of cases and for this they deserve the credit and laurels for achieving anything yet I cannot see them as highly successful. -
Message 16
Posted by X-Calibre (U3269597) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Hello! I have just joined 'the family' and have been reading all submissions with great interest.
My uncle was with 2nd Battalion Parachute Reg Army Air Corps. March 10th 1943 he was killed and is buried at Tabarka in Tunisia. I was eight at the time and, if memory serves, the circumstances were to the effect that he was in a glider that crashed on takeoff when heading to Crete or Sicilly, (he was twenty). Is there any way of substantiating this? -
Message 17
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Hi, I mentioned this on an earlier post but was wondering whether you as experts on the subject could answer this - whether or not the use of the German Para troops could have in theory altered the outcome of Stalingrad - not by the new year of Jan '43 but maybe in say September/October '42 by landing across the Volga and attacking Russian supply depots whilsst the 6th Army hammered the outer defences and pushed through to the city - maybe if the para's had have took the Eastern landing stages to defend then things might have different.
-
Message 18
Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Hi, I mentioned this on an earlier post but was wondering whether you as experts on the subject could answer this - whether or not the use of the German Para troops could have in theory altered the outcome of Stalingrad - not by the new year of Jan '43 but maybe in say September/October '42 by landing across the Volga and attacking Russian supply depots whilsst the 6th Army hammered the outer defences and pushed through to the city - maybe if the para's had have took the Eastern landing stages to defend then things might have different.Β
If they were to have tried it they would have had a narrow window of opportunity. When the Sixth Army reached Stalingrad in the last week of August the Soviet air defences were almost non existant. The first Luftwaffe raid on the city on 23rd August consisted of hundreds of sorties and they only lost a couple of aircraft. They had complete air superiority initially. It would have taken a mammoth effort though to carry out an air drop and keep it supplied and i doubt they had the numbers of aircraft needed to do that and keep the Army supplied as it was. Crete was a very close run thing with very high casualties so from the German point of view an air drop like you suggest would have had enormous risks attached to it. It is an interesting what if scenario though.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.