This edition is published by PICKLE PARTNERS PUBLISHINGwww.picklepartnerspublishing.com
To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books picklepublishing@gmail.com
Or on Facebook
Text originally published in 1999 under the same title.
Pickle Partners Publishing 2014, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.
Publishers Note
Although in most cases we have retained the Authors original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern readers benefit.
We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.
Fall Gelb & the German Blitzkrieg of 1940: Operational Art?
By
Major Rick S. Richardson, U.S. Army
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine if the German blitzkrieg and Fall Gelb of 1940 were an expression of operational art. Despite the mythology surrounding Fall Gelb, the campaign does not constitute a major breakthrough in operational art by the Germans. Fall Gelb was not an expression of operational art. This conclusion is based upon an analysis using the approaches posed by U.S. Army and joint doctrine, Dr. James Schneider and Dr. Shimon Naveh.
The purpose of this study is to examine more closely what is meant by operational art and to use those contemporary insights to re-examine German military operations in France in May 1940, Fall Gelb. Fall Gelb was chosen because it is a campaign that is frequently studied and often used and abused to illustrate various points relating to military operations. The study of the Fall Gelb campaign offers a glimpse of past operations through the lens of contemporary thought. That study provides the contemporary military professional an opportunity to improve his understanding of operational art through the study of a historical campaign.
Fall Gelb must be analyzed using criteria derived from a modern understanding of operational art to objectively assess the significance of Fall Gelb. There are three distinctive approaches to operational art. One way to approach the problem is to use contemporary doctrine as a yardstick. Contemporary doctrine approaches the issue by using simple definitions and lists to describe the essential elements of operational art. Another approach is that taken by Dr. James Schneider from the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies. Schneiders approach seeks to describe the phenomena associated with the practice of Operation Art. Schneider breaks down operational art into key attributes necessary for the practice of Operational Art. A third approach to the issue is that used by Dr. Shimon Naveh, an Israeli military theorist. Navehs approach focuses on describing the cognitive process he identifies as operational art. These approaches to the subject of operational art offer three different standards by which to measure German military operations. The three approaches share common elements and can be used to produce a set of common criteria for the analysis of Fall Gelb.
German operations in 1940 reveal little insight into the elements of operational art. The Germans failed to use a unified and holistic approach in their design, execution, and sustainment of campaigns mostly due to their lack of political-strategic cognition. Hitlers overpowering influence in the operational and tactical levels of war severely limited the German militarys operational vision, which is a prerequisite for operational art. Also, the German planners in the OKH and OKW failed to identify a clear sequence of tactical and operational objectives to achieve strategic goals and thus did not practice operational art. The German Officer Corps did not have a broad and universal theory of blitzkrieg. There was no consensus within the military as to the operational substance of blitzkrieg. The Germans maneuvers lacked industrious relationships between strategic, operational, and tactical actions. The operational design was ambiguous because the planners could see no farther than the tactical success. The High Command hoped that unfolding events would guide their thought for the second phase of Fall Gelb.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the way to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed. {1} Sun Tzu
Emergence of Operational Art
The concept of operational art arose during the late 1800s. The early military theorists Clausewitz and Jomini did not use the term. In fact, the term carried no special significance prior to the twentieth century. When it was used the term referred to the organization of supplies and marches. {2} The history of operational art reveals that it emerged as a consequence of changes in classical strategy that were brought about through the evolution of warfare. This evolution was the product of a series of changes to the fundamental nature of warfare in latter part of the nineteenth century. Advances in weapon lethality, transportation, communications, and the raising and organization of field armies altered the conduct of war. Those advances forced adaptation to both the enhanced military capabilities and the complexity born of the new changes.
In a paper titled Vulcans Anvil: The American Civil War and the Emergence of Operational Art, Dr. Schneider further described the specific origins of operational art. Dr. Schneider explained that classical strategy had held for hundreds of years that decisive military action occurred when armies came together in a dense mass on a single point within a theater of operations. During the American Civil war that pattern of military operations changed as a new manner of warfare emerged. Technological advances allowed armies to conduct dispersed maneuvers, which in turn expanded and emptied the battlefield. The increased lethality of modern weapons, such as the breech-loading rifle, and quick-firing artillery, caused soldiers to disperse to avoid the effects of these weapons. This dispersion created the empty battlefield. The dispersion of forces combined with advanced transportation and communications means propelled the emergence of large field armies that could effectively use distributed maneuver. {3} Because of these changes, a gap developed between tactics which tended to produce concentric maneuver in search of a battle at a decisive point and strategy which tended to define war aims divorced from tactics. That gap in classical theory represented a large intellectual void that needed to be filled. The physical changes in the conduct of war were the prerequisites for operations at a level beyond tactics, but not quite strategy, and thus the art of linking strategy to tactics was born. The U.S. Army has labeled the art of linking strategy to tactics, operational art. The following table compares classical strategy to operational art. {4}
