WI Hitler used paratroopers after 1941?

Hitler stopped doing airborne operations after appaling casualties on Crete, which was nearly ideal conditions for an airborne operation.

Crete was worst possible conditions for use of paras. Paras succeed when they are expected to hold airhead for short time after which they are relieved by heavy gorund force. This is what happened in Holland in 1940 and was to happen in Holland 4 years later. Expecting paras to seize defended point by themselves is asking for disaster. Crete was touch and go for exactly that reason. The relieving force was expected to cross sea where RN held upper hand.

I may be totally stupid, but weren't German paratroops used in Sicily 1943?

yes, as they were used in several other places but not in their intended role. Germany used paras in their intended role during Ardennes offensive but in small numbers (~company)
 
Total or not annihilation the casualties were heavy enough to cause a shock to the German leadership...

To add to that, it doesn't take 100% casualties for an unit to be useless. For example during WW2 finnish determined any soviet division that had taken 40% casualties to be destroyed. Because for all practical purposes it was.

Same applies for the airborne troops, if you have to rebuild the entire unit after each time it is used, then perhaps the resources are better used somewhere else.
 
Airborne units while Elite formations cannot operate without significant support(CAS,FAS) for any length of time Hitler was right to cease Divisional sized drops,as the situation was never right for them to be used again after Crete.Having read through the AAR's of the 82nd & 101st Division's from Normandy I'm always suprised how light the losses were and yet both Divisions had to be completly rebuilt after Overlord which led to the current doctrine of drops no larger than Brigade(3 BTLN's+spt). The reality is that any Elite Assault formation will suffer losses in greater numbers than a Line unit and still function but the drain on manpower and resources is rarely worth it . There was only a small tech window for large scale Airborne operations to work effectively and even then the circumstances that lent themselves to successful ops are rare in warfare for the Germans after Crete so even if Hitler hadnt banned them they probably never would have made a mass drop again.
 
To add to that, it doesn't take 100% casualties for an unit to be useless. For example during WW2 finnish determined any soviet division that had taken 40% casualties to be destroyed. Because for all practical purposes it was.

Same applies for the airborne troops, if you have to rebuild the entire unit after each time it is used, then perhaps the resources are better used somewhere else.

Both right - and both a different kettle of fish from "total annihilation", which was what I pointed out.
 
Perhaps on the Eastern Front, rather than have a paratroop drop to achieve a particular objective, why not have one to hold one!?

What I mean by that is that the problem with the German invasion of Russia was the the Germans had two 'armies' a Panzer Army, and a much slower infantry army - that marched fought and marched again - supported by horse drawn artillery. The problem being that with the different 'speeds' of the two 'armies' gaps appeared - or else orders came down from on high for the Panzers to halt - while the infantry caught up.
But, in order to continue the disruption, of the enemy that the Panzer thrusts made, then they shouldn't halt but go on to the next objective.

Hence, the thought couldn't a paratroop drop be made where two Panzer pincers have met. Now in this situation the retreating Russians that were caught in the 'pocket' are met not by the panzer division's motorised troops, but the paratroopers. This leaves (much to Guderian's relief) the Panzers able to resume their advance and continue their disintegration of the enemy.
 
Originally posted by merlin
Perhaps on the Eastern Front, rather than have a paratroop drop to achieve a particular objective, why not have one to hold one!?
What I mean by that is that the problem with the German invasion of Russia was the the Germans had two 'armies' a Panzer Army, and a much slower infantry army - that marched fought and marched again - supported by horse drawn artillery. The problem being that with the different 'speeds' of the two 'armies' gaps appeared - or else orders came down from on high for the Panzers to halt - while the infantry caught up.
But, in order to continue the disruption, of the enemy that the Panzer thrusts made, then they shouldn't halt but go on to the next objective.
Hence, the thought couldn't a paratroop drop be made where two Panzer pincers have met. Now in this situation the retreating Russians that were caught in the 'pocket' are met not by the panzer division's motorised troops, but the paratroopers. This leaves (much to Guderian's relief) the Panzers able to resume their advance and continue their disintegration of the enemy.
Well, airborne landing is rather complicated operation - planning and preparing it takes some time. Blitzkrieg is to fast for this, unless you planned an ariborne attack before starting the campaign. Situation changes to quickly, e.g. one position might be vital one day, and completely without any importance two days later. The same about blocking retreating units - situation changes to quickly if enemy decides to choose other way of retreat. Besides, retreating forces are dangerous too, and in open field lightly armed paras don't have big chance against masses of infantry, unless you count psychological factor. Also Germans didn't have that many paras and, what is more important, that many planes. Tactical landings might be possible, nothing more.
 
Top