WI Germans embrace paratroopers despite assault on Crete

The German aerial assault of Crete was a success, and the Greek defenders, along with their British allies, were driven off the island. However, they manage to pull off the victory with a minimum of casualties, unlike in OTL. I've read that the Germans abandoned the concept of airborne assault troops after the heavy losses the Fallschirmjagers took at Crete, so I was wondering what sort of effect this would have later in the war, since the Germans would presumably be more confident with their use of paratroopers. Are there any particular battles or campaigns later in the war where they would have benefited from using airborne troops in their intended role?
 
Malta I think would likely be their next target if the capture of Crete had minimal casualties. If lets say a capture of Malta is successful, it could ensure a supply line for Rommel's Afrika Corps, and maybe Rommel can drive to the Suez and force the British to peace.
 
Not necessarily; British subs could still base out of Gibraltar and Alexandria, and still go after Rommel's supply ships. Loss of Malta would only eliminate the air and surface threat, but not the subs.

As for additional German air drops, there were several instances in the Russian campaign where paratroopers could have been useful: seizing river crossings, for example.
 
The Germans did continue to use paratroopers quite frequently, on the Aegean campaign of 1943, for example. They did abandon the idea of using paratroopers operating independently, considering them too vurnurable and lightly armed for large-scale operations on their own.

The allies would draw the same conclusion at Arnhem.
 
Yeah, and the SS had IIRC two Fallschirmjäger battallions, which were used for small scale special operations. Hell, one of the first uses of the Stg-44 was when a number of rifles and instruction manuals were parachuted in to a cut-off force in the East, which subsequently broke out. But there are few if any instances where a large-scale paradrop would help turn the tide.

EDIT: Maybe a large-scale paratroop raid on the Kremlin?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I remember reading an essay in Battle of the Bulge: Hitler's Alternate Scenarios about a successful German breakout towards Antwerp.

Basically, they ran into the same problem that I realized a few months ago when I started reading about WWII: even if the Germans broke through the Allied lines in the Ardennes, they still had First Canadian Army standing between them and Antwerp. And this was First Canadian Army after the Battle of the Scheldt, when it was very probably the finest ground force Canada would ever field.

So in this scenario (one where they are faced with having to fight a land battle against First Canadian Army after busting through the American lines) they contemplate dropping paratroopers in the rear of the Canadian lines to capture bridges, or at least deny their full use to the Allies.

In the end it's called off as they can only lift two battalions at a time but it was an interesting idea.
 
They didn't abandon the concept of airborne assault, but they did revise their airborne doctrine and pretty much abandoned large scale airborne operations.

If the Germans still followed large scale airborne operations. Soviet Union would be more screwed when Barbarossa occurs. Fallschirmjäger capturing Soviet airfields and securing roads/bases/vital areas before and waiting for the armored units to come in? Easier time for the German to push in, less resistance then they actually encountered.

Think I read somewhere that if paratroopers were used, Leningrad would have fallen, don't exactly remember why.
 
It takes a lot of handwavium to make for an easy Cretan victory, much less one at Malta. Plus they don't have the sealift to support a Cyprus operation (though it WAS proposed). In some ways, Crete was almost a mini-Midway for the German paratroopers. Up until that time, it seemed (except to the paratroopers) that everything had gone so easily for them...

Also, it would have taken a British PM other than Winston Churchill to order an evacuation of Crete prior to the German landings, which you need for an easy German victory. There was no way Winston would have let slip away the chance to set up a potential strategic bomber base within range of the Ploesti oilfields.

The Crete Air Assault was a shoestring operation for the Germans in which the proposed sea landings utterly failed (on the first day, at least) and all the air drops failed as well, at least initially. Only the quick thinking of local German commanders sending in the last of the para reserves, and the foolish actions of one New Zealand battalion commander in withdrawing from the critical Hill 107 overlooking Maleme Airfield, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Malta takes all those problems and multiplies them with the fact that the British had a much more concentrated defense. There were only a very limited number of very heavily defended objectives. The Germans would be airdropping in circumstances in which their only hope of salvation would be the surface fleet of the Italian Navy. In one of his fleeting bursts of wisdom, Hitler denounced Operation: Hercules on the basis that his paratroopers would be abandoned by Mussolini's sailors and left to fend for themselves.:eek:

As to the Russian front? A divisional level assault on the Russian Front simply was not workable. The speed of German advances in 1941-42 meant by the time the Fallschirmjager could plan and organize an operation the objective would already have been taken by ground forces. Also, NKVD forces and the overall concentration of Soviet troops in Soviet rear echelon areas essentially made such air insertions by a single division suicidal.:( And once air superiority was lost...
 
They didn't abandon the concept of airborne assault, but they did revise their airborne doctrine and pretty much abandoned large scale airborne operations.

If the Germans still followed large scale airborne operations. Soviet Union would be more screwed when Barbarossa occurs. Fallschirmjäger capturing Soviet airfields and securing roads/bases/vital areas before and waiting for the armored units to come in? Easier time for the German to push in, less resistance then they actually encountered.

Think I read somewhere that if paratroopers were used, Leningrad would have fallen, don't exactly remember why.

Paratroopers in Leningrad get massacred by NKVD troops specifically trained for urban combat (keeping control of rebellious civilians and mutinous troops in urban areas IS their forte:)). Something similar happened with NKVD troops defending in Rostov, but the Germans at least were fighting them with ground forces. And it was still a costly (though victorious) campaign.

Paratroopers in Russia at the start is only possible if Crete is a walkover, which isn't going to happen unless Churchill resigns as PM and becomes a Hare-Krishna. Other wise these attacks in the opening day of Barbarossa would be carried out by companies reduced to platoon and squad level strength. Not saying they couldn't be rebuilt eventually. But training new paratroopers takes a long time.
 
Paratrooper doctrine would really have to be changed. No more dropping in troops with nothing but knives and pistols and having them to reach canisters for their rifles and weapons. Fix their parachute designs and have them drop with their weapons. Would make them more deadly.

I never said that they would be able to take Leningrad, though that I read somewhere that a particular author argued for it. Would be hilarious though to imagine Soviet troops being supplied by captured weapon/supply canisters.
 
This was one of Hitler's "smart" choices in abandoning airborne warfare.

Airborne ops except under very very limited circumstances (ie no opposition; operation plunder) where universally disasters in ww2

case in point

Holland - The Germans took heavy casualites and massive losses in irreplacable aircraft

Crete - Ditto Holladnd

Russian assault on the Dnieper - Heavy losses to German mechanized battlegroups

Small landings to support operation torch - heavy losses to German mechanized battle groups

Sicily - scattered landings, heavy friendly fire, heavy losses to German mechanized battle groups

Salerno - ditto Sicily

D-Day - Massive dispersion, heavy losses

Market Garden - dispersion heavy losses to German mechanized battlegroups

Paratroopers are hugely expensive to field, and their effect on battles was hardly worth the effort and cost to bring them onto the battlefield... better to have a couple of extra line divisions
 
For D-Day, didn't the Allied paratroopers hold several important areas (at least one bridge comes to mind) that helped hold off a few counter attacks in the critical hours of the first day(s) of the invasion? Didn't they also cause havoc to German communications after taking the initiative?
 
For D-Day, didn't the Allied paratroopers hold several important areas (at least one bridge comes to mind) that helped hold off a few counter attacks in the critical hours of the first day(s) of the invasion? Didn't they also cause havoc to German communications after taking the initiative?
Yes, the assault on Pegasus Bridge arguably saved the D-Day beaches from being over run with Panzer divisions. Although that was captured by a small glider force, so you could argue whether that counts as a solely paratrooper operation.
 
For D-Day, didn't the Allied paratroopers hold several important areas (at least one bridge comes to mind) that helped hold off a few counter attacks in the critical hours of the first day(s) of the invasion? Didn't they also cause havoc to German communications after taking the initiative?

They did, though remember if the allies hadn't had the paras they could instead have had an equal-sized force of elite infantry to, say, do the beach landings, more tactical bombers in place of the transports, etc. Heck, maybe the US could have built more LVT's and used them on Omaha and Utah.

Any military force is the result of a huge number of decisions on how to allocate resources. More of one thing almost always means less of something else.
 
I'm pretty sure that in the Med, Malta was the next target and was meant to be attacked by paratroopers. Now apparently it would not have been a good choice for the Germans, but eventually, despite the losses, Malta would have fallen, especially if the Italians had such a role that the Maltese people could surrended to them when all becomes lost.
 
They did, though remember if the allies hadn't had the paras they could instead have had an equal-sized force of elite infantry to, say, do the beach landings, more tactical bombers in place of the transports, etc. Heck, maybe the US could have built more LVT's and used them on Omaha and Utah.

Any military force is the result of a huge number of decisions on how to allocate resources. More of one thing almost always means less of something else.

The resources for the 2 american airborne divisions could have allowed at least 2 or 3 more regiments to land on dday and greatly increased the front at which the allies landed which would have greatly reduced the congestion and traffic jams on the beaches which was a critical reason they got boxed in
 
Top