Excellence in Historical Research and Analysis
Excellence in Historical Research and Analysis
This is a link to a long article by Dr. Ben Wheatley called ‘Surviving Prokhorovka: German Armoured Longevity on the Eastern Front in 1943-1944.”: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16161262.2020.1750841
I have not read it yet and probably will not for a while. I have some other deadlines I am working to. This is a subject we have discussed before on this blog.
In June 1943 Otto Dessloch took over command of the Fourth Air Fleet from Wolfram von Richthofen. Richthofen went off to command the Second Air Fleet in Italy. Although it was supposed to be temporary command, Dessloch remained in command of the Fourth Air Fleet until the middle of 1944.
Dessloch later became infamous for having conducted a retaliatory bombing of Paris in September 1944, after the allies had taken it over. He passed away in Munich in 1977.
Now, I have two dates as to when he took command of the Fourth Air Fleet, either 11 June or 13 June. Right now, I don’t have any solid confirmation for either date, although Wikipedia uses the 11 June date. Does anyone has some clear documentation that establishes what date he took command?
A few years ago I wrote an article on the History News Network on my decision to quote from David Irving’s work in my book on Kursk. The article is here: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/163814
This primarily concerned the conference on 4 May 1943 preceding the Battle of Kursk. This conference is described in some depth by Guderian in his book. Guderian’s account has often been accepted uncritically by some writers. The account provided by David Irving, quoted from Wolfram von Richthofen (the cousin of the famous Red Baron), gives a very different picture of the conference. I do not know which account is more correct, but decided to present them both in my book.
Nine months ago, Dr. Andrew Arthy in Australia commented on that article that he had copies of the notes make by Wolfram von Richthofen. I noticed the comment last week, so looked him up, emailed him and he willingly provided a copy of the memo. It came from Freiburg: BA-MA N 671/10. The image above is the copy he sent me.
Jay Karamales (who is not a native German speaker) provided me with the following translation of it:
1.) Operation Citadel: General Model said he wasn’t strong enough and would likely get stuck or would need a lot of time. The Führer was of the opinion that the attack must smash through in the shortest possible time under all circumstances. Colonel General Guderian held out the prospect that within six weeks he would be able to supply sufficient armored forces that this would be guaranteed. The Führer therefore decided to postpone it for six weeks. To confirm this decision from all directions, discussion with FM von Kluge and FM von Manstein. Initially, they agreed to a postponement; however, when they heard that the Führer had already made the decision along these lines, they promoted [preached, publicized] an immediate start to the attack, apparently so as not to be burdened [encumbered? In legalese “belasten” means incriminated] by the postponement themselves.
Chief of the General Staff has doubts as to whether Guderian’s promises can be kept, above all because a larger number of Tiger deliveries are expected, but it appears that their chassis construction is not in order.
The Chief of Luftflotte 4 takes the position that postponement was wrong under all circumstances. The Russians can (and do) deploy more defense systems in six weeks than we can attack weapons. The attack will go slowly if we wait to start it in mid-June. [If we launch it] At the beginning of May we might not get to Kursk in the scheduled time of 48 hours, but certainly within 4 days. The Russian had defensive structures only on the fronts and not as deep as now. The Russian forces were still in the process of freshening up and realigning, while the Russian is now strong and ready. Our own troops (army corps and divisions) had total confidence and absolute success. This has definitely been undermined by all the back and forth and the waiting [delays]. The postponement gives the Russian the opportunity to take the initiative, even if this is not likely. In any case, it is impossible to predict how the postponement of the operation and its probably much slower progress will affect the plan [intentions] in the northern part of the Eastern Front.
David Irving’s translation (and he does his own translation), from his book Hitler’s War, reads:
[On 27 April] General Model declared he was not strong enough and would probably get bogged down or take too long. The Fuehrer took the view that the attack must be punched through without fail in shortest time possible. [Early in May.] General Guderian offered to furnish enough tank units within six weeks to guarantee this. The Fuehrer thus decided on a postponement of six weeks. To get the blessing of all sides on this decision, he called a conference [on 4 May] with Field Marshals von Kluge and von Manstein. At first they agreed on a postponement; but when they heard that the Fuehrer had already made his mind up to that effect, they spoke out for an immediate opening of the attack—apparently in order to avoid the odium of being blamed for the postponement themselves.
Annoying Disclaimer (that I probably should not need to make): The fact that I have referenced David Irving’s work in an area where he correctly quoted someone does not mean that I agree with or in any way support other claims or work that he has done.
P.S. Dr. Andrew Arthy is currently working on: https://airwarpublications.com/air-war-courland-writing-begun/
P.P.S. Another translation of the same passage is provided in Christer Bergstrom’s newly released Black Cross, Red Star, Volume 5 book, page 181. It reads:
They initially agreed to a postponement; however, when they heard that the Fuhrer had already made a decision in this sense, they propagated an immediate commencement of the attack, apparently so as not to be burdened by the shift themselves.”
The Aces at Kursk book may be my last Kursk book I will do for a while, depending on demand. From my original mega-book I have prepared two books, The Battle of Prokhorovka and Aces at Kursk. From the original book I can prepare two more books: The Battle of Tolstoye Woods and The Belgorod Offensive. These four books would effectively complete the serialization of my original book. I could also create one additional book, which would be a 300-page book for a more general audience addressing the entire battle in the south.
Also in my files are the German and Soviet research materials and draft texts to produce two or three others books covering the Soviet offensive to take Kharkov in February 1943, the German counteroffensive to retake Kharkov in March 1943 and the Soviet offensive to take Kharkov in August 1943. As part of our urban warfare work, we pulled up the unit records for both sides for the three battles in and around Kharkov in 1943. The fighting in February and March of 1943 was the fighting that immediately preceded the Battle of Kursk. They are probably best covered in a single book. The fighting in August 1943 is a continuation of the Battle of Kursk and is considered part of the Battle of Kursk by Soviet historians.
This would potentially allow for a series of six to eight books covering most of the fighting on the Russian Front in the south from February to August 1943. But I am not sure whether I should do that or move onto other projects. Right now, leaning towards moving onto other projects.
I do have a completed book of around 400 pages called Aces at Kursk: The Belgorod Offensive Air War. It is a book about the actual air battles, as opposed to yet another picture book. The air battles at Kursk were larger than the Battle of Britain, yet there is not a single comprehensive book addressing it.
I have contacted a number of publishers and am still waiting for a response from some of them. A couple of them made a counter offer than I do picture book. But, it is probably time to go out and look for other publishers. If someone knows a publisher that this book is a particularly good fit for please let me know. If a publisher has a strong interest in this book, please contact me directly.
Thanks
Niklas Zetterling’s revised and update version of his excellent book Normandy 1944 is being re-issued. According to Amazon.com it will be available January 10, 2020. The link is here: Normandy 1944
It is set up to “look inside” so you can get some idea what is in there. It is of course, not another war story but a two part discussion on “Campaign Analysis” and “German Combat Formations.”
The “look inside” feature did not include an ability to search the text, so I was not able to check the really important stuff, like how many times Trevor Dupuy and I are mentioned in the book. I am graciously acknowledged in the introduction (as is Richard Anderson). Now, I did write an appendix for the original book. Always the gentleman, Niklas did ask my permission to remove it from this edition.
The book does include a discussion of the relative combat efficiency of the German forces compared to British and U.S. units, always a sensitive subject. We have never invested a lot of time in analyzing Normandy. Most of our analysis of this subject is from Italy 1943-44, Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) 1944-45 and Kharkov and Kursk 1943 (and shown in War by Numbers). So this is a nice independent look at the subject using additional data from a different campaign by a different scholar.
Having looked at casualty exchanges from my book War by Numbers and in the previous post, it is clear that there are notable differences between the German and Soviet armies, and between the Israeli and Arab armies. These differences show up in the force ratio tables, in the percent of wins, and in the casualty exchange ratios. As shown above, there is also a difference between the German and the U.S. and UK armies in Italy 1943-44, but this difference is no where to the same degree. These differences show up in the casualty exchange ratios. They also will show up in the force ratio comparisons that follow.
The Italian Campaign is an untapped goldmine for research into human factors. In addition to German, American and British armies, there were Brazilian, Canadian, French, French Algerian, French Moroccan, Greek, Indian, Italian, New Zealander, Polish, and South African forces there, among others like the Jewish brigade. There was also an African-American Division and a Japanese-American battalion and regiment actively engaged in this theater. Also the German records are much better than they were in the second half of 1944. So, the primary source data these engagements are built from are better than the engagements from the ETO.
We have 137 engagements from the Italian Campaign. There are 136 from 9 September to 4 June 1944 and one from13-17 September 1944. Of those, 70 consisted of the Americans attacking, 49 consisted of armed forces of the United Kingdom in the offense, and 18 consisted of the Germans attacks, often limited and local counterattacks (eight attacks against the United States and ten attacks against the UK). So, let us compare these based upon force ratios.
There were seven cases of engagements coded as “limited attacks” and one case of “other”. These eight cases are excluded in the table above on those lines in italics.
Needless to say, this is a fairly good performance by the American Army, with them winning more than 40% the attacks below two-to-one and pretty winning most of them (86%) at odds above two-to-one.
There were five cases of limited action and five cases of limited attack. These ten cases are excluded in the table above on those lines in italics.
This again shows the difference in performance between the American Army and the British Army. This is always an uncomfortable comparison, as this author is somewhat of an anglophile with a grandfather from Liverpool; but data is data. In this case they won 44% of the time at attacks below two-to-one, which is similar to what the U.S. Army did. But then, they only won only 63% of the time at odds above two-to-one (using the culled data set). This could just be statistical anomaly as we are only looking at 30 cases, but is does support the results we are seeing from the casualty data.
What is interesting is the mix of attacks. For the American Army 77% of the attacks were at odds below two-to-one, for the British Army only 23% of the attacks were at odds below two-to-one (using the culled data sets). While these 99 cases do not include every engagement in the Italian Campaign at that time, they include many of the major and significant ones. They are probably a good representation. This does probably reflect a little reality here, in that the British tended to be more conservative on the attack then the Americans. This is also demonstrated by the British lower average loss per engagement.[7]
The reverse, which is when the Germans are attacking, does not provide a clear picture.
German Army attacking the American and British Army, Italy 1943-44 – complete data set (18 cases)
The Germans only win in 28% of the cases here. They win in 13% of the engagements versus the U.S. (8 cases) and 40% of the engagements the UK (10 cases). Still, at low odds attacks (1.17 to 1.48-to-1) they are winning 50% of the time. They are conducting 78% of their attacks at odds below two-to-one.
In the end, the analysis here is limited by the number of cases. It is hard to draw any definitive conclusions from only 18 cases of attacks. Clearly the analysis would benefit with a more exhaustive collection of engagements from the Italian Campaign. This would require a significant investment of time (and money).[8]
————————–
[1] There were four limited attacks that resulted in three defender wins and a draw. There was one “other” that was an attacker win.
[2] There three limited attacks that resulted in two defender wins and a draw.
[3] There were four “limited actions” that were defender wins and one “limited attack” that was a defender win.
[4] There as one “limited action” that was a defender win and two “limited attacks” that were defender wins.
[5] There were two “limited attacks” that were defender wins.
[6] The author’s grandfather was born in Liverpool and raised in Liverpool, England and Ryls, Wales. He served in the British merchant marine during World War I and afterwards was part of the British intervention at Murmansk Russia in 1918-1919. See the blog post:
[7] See War by Numbers, pages 25-27. The data shows that for the Americans in those 36 cases where their attack was successful they suffered an average of 353 casualties per engagement. For the 34 American attacks that were not successful they suffered an average of 351 casualties per engagement. For the UK, in the 23 cases where their attack was successful, the UK suffered an average of 213 casualties per engagement. Of the 26 cases where the UK attacks were not successful, they suffered an average of 137 casualties per engagement.
[8] Curt Johnson, the vice-president of HERO, estimated that it took an average of three man-days to create an engagement. He was involved in developing the original database that included about half of the 137 Italian Campaign engagements. My estimation parameter, including the primary source research required to conduct this is more like six days. Regardless, this would mean that just to create this 137 case database took an estimated 411 to 822 man-days, or 1.6 to 3.3 man-years of effort. Therefore, to expand this data set to a more useful number of engagements is going to take several years of effort.
Now, there were a few amphibious operations and major river crossing operations during the Italian Campaign. These are significant enough that we should examine them separately. Among the 141 Italian Campaign engagements there are three amphibious operations and 16 river crossing operations. These are outlined in our previous post:
This is a small number of cases, but does seem to show that the defender has an advantage when defending against amphibious assaults and river crossings. To compare them to the rest of the engagements:
Amphibious Operations Comparison – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
River Crossings Comparison – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
Now this is a very small number of cases for comparison, and just for balance I tried to match it across similar terrain types.[1] Still, even with this very limited data, there appears to be a clear pattern. In every case the exchange ratio more favors the defender. In the case of amphibious operations, this either 2.51-to-1 or 0.79-to-1 compared to 3.98-to-1 for amphibious operations. For river crossings this is 1.08-to-1 compared to 1.10-to-1 for UK river crossings, 0.78-to-1 compared to 3.47-to-1 for U.S. river crossings (or 0.78-to-1 compared to 0.82-to-1 if the two Rapido River engagements are left out), and 0.94-to-1 compared to 1.88-to-1 for German river crossings. Obviously a whole lot more cases would need to be examined to establish anything with certainty, but there are not a lot of amphibious operations over river crossings coded in the ETO or Kursk/Kharkov sections of the database. It would require a significant research effort to assemble such data.
Of course, what this really all points to is that the data needs to be more tightly prescribed and a whole lot more cases need to be assembled.
———
[1] In the case of U.S./UK Attacking – Amphibious, one engagement was done by the U.S. and the other two by the UK. In the case of UK Attacking – River Crossing there were 7 cases in flat mixed terrain and 1 case of rolling mixed terrain. In the case of U.S. Attacking – River Crossing there were 3 cases of rolling mixed terrain, one case of Rugged Mixed, and two cases codes as FB/M, meaning the terrain varied from flat bare to flat mixed. In the case of German Attacking – River Crossing, both engagements were in flat mixed terrain but one was against the U.S. and the other was against the UK. In the case of German Attacking – Other FM two engagements were against the U.S. and three were against the UK.
In a previous post, there is an extended discussion of how much the terrain was influencing the results. One reader asked about amphibious operations and river crossings.
Measuring Human Factors based on Casualty Effectiveness in Italy 1943-1944
Among the 141 Italian Campaign engagements there are three amphibious operations and 16 river crossing operations.
Amphibious Operations – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
.
River Crossings – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
.
The description of the headers is given in the previous post. The “Less two” row is less the two Rapido River engagements by the 36th Infantry Division on the 20th and 21st of January 1944. These were particularly bloody and lopsided engagements (exchange ratios of 12-to-1 and 48-to-1 respectively).
Again, this is a small number of cases, but does seem to show that the defender has an advantage when defending against amphibious assaults and river crossings.
In our previous post, there is an extended discussion on how much the terrain was influencing the results.
Measuring Human Factors based on Casualty Effectiveness in Italy 1943-1944
I have done some analysis of the terrain involved. Below are some figures for the German attacks based upon terrain:
Germans Attacking U.S. – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
.
Germans Attacking UK – Italian Campaign 1943-44:
This is material that I am developing for a new book tentatively called More War by Numbers.
Anyhow, the terrain is as defined by Trevor Dupuy. What is interesting to look at is the flat mixed terrain compared to rugged and rolling.
Cases is the number of engagements. Needless to say, the number of cases in each category is way too low to be statistically significant….and this is from a data base of 141 cases (for Italy alone). Percent wins is based upon analyst coding of engagements. Percent advance is based upon a different analyst coding of engagements. In it possible that an engagement can be coded as “Attack Advances” and a “Defender” win. It does not happen in these 15 cases. Average attacker and defender losses is based upon the average losses per day (so losses in a multi-day engagement is divided by the number of days). The force ratio is the total strength of the attackers in all these selected engagements divided by the total strength of the defenders in all these selected engagements. The exchange ratio is the total losses of the attackers in all these selected engagements divided by the total losses of the defender in all these selected engagements.
So, for example, in flat mixed terrain there are three cases of the Germans attacking the Americans. The force ratio is 1.60-to-1 (averaged across these attacks) and the exchange ratio is less than one-to-one (0.96-to-1). On the other hand, in the four cases of the Germans attacking the Americans in flat mixed terrain, the weighted force ratio is 1.38-to-1 and the weighted loss ratio is 1.24-to-1, meaning the German attacker lost more than British defender.
I do have similar data for the Americans. It is also pretty confusing to interpret.