Was the German Army just Lucky?

Recently someone noted about the Japanese and then the Germans that they were just lucky about their early successes, well, this for me is just another oversimplification that is just wrong. In this video Justin Pyke (MA) and address this whole issue in a little more detail, with some very specific examples.
Definitions of Luck:
“Success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.”
“Luck Is What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity."

Cover design by vonKickass.

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

» SOURCES «

Corum, James: Defeat of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945. In: Higham, Robin (ed.); Harris, Stephen J. (ed.): Why Air Forces Fail. The Anatomy of Defeat. The University Press of Kentucky: Kentucky, USA, 2006.

Frieser, Karl-Heinz: Blitzkrieg-Legende. Der Westfeldzug 1940. 4. Auflage. Oldenbourg Verlag: München, 2012.

Jentz, Thomas L.: Panzertruppen – The complete guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany’s Tank Force – 1933-1942. Schiffer Military History: Atglen, USA, 1996.

Zaloga, Steven J.: French Tanks of World War II (2) – Cavalry Tanks and AFVs. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, 2014.

#GermansWereJustLucky,#LuckInWar,#AllLuckNoSkill

[RasputinGrigori]

Napoleon Bonaparte - “I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones.”

[cannonfodder]

0:50 "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." I am so stealing that phrase for future use.

[Torus]

One thing I've learned from military history is that being able to take advantage of good luck is one of the most important capabilities a military force can have.

[MilitaryAviationHistory]

01:28 MHV: '[...] four men stumble out of the woods, they were lost or something, we don't know...happens all the time.'

Maybe in Austria...?

[danielbat]

"A good commander never underestimates luck"
Or as my chess tutor once said "you don't have to be the best, just marginally better than the other player"

[joestendel]

The artwork for the thumbnail on this one is worth double whatever you paid

[ididthisonpulpous]

The legendary pro golfer Arnold Palmer when asked by a reporter about a "lucky" shot. Palmer quipped "I get luckier every time I play."

[cleanerben]

Any luck is counter balanced by having the Italians as allies.

[themadpizzler]

As an Army veteran, I always considered luck a persistent factor on the tactical level, but almost non-existent on the operational and strategic levels. If something was 'unlucky' on an operational plan, the problem wasn't luck, it was someone not doing their job with attention to detail.

[MartinCHorowitz]

Now I have images of Rommel Rolling dice for an initiative check and conferring with his units dungeon master while invading France....

[porpoise]

Anyone saying German won in France due to luck is just being silly.

The one way I can see this argued is that they viewed it as lucky that the British and French made bad decisions and failed in various ways. Or that they were lucky that Rommel took actions contrary to orders.

But even if you accept that as “luck” it was the Germans were in position and prepared to exploit that “luck”.

I am sure lots of luck played into various things, but to say it was the dominant factor is ridiculous.

[whiskeytangosierra]

The more I practice, the luckier I get.

Or the French were doing more things wrong. A lot of victories devolve to who made the fewest mistakes.

[colobossable]

Bismarck and Hood are good examples of where people take a single incident out of context, and one example of a dice-roll as a 1 or 6, rather than realising that the average value is 3 or 4.
Bismarck hitting and destroying Hood with the first salvo was very lucky, but equally Bismarck was a superior ship in superior tactical circumstances and probably would have won a more prolonged engagement anyway (or had a higher chance of doing so).
The situation with the Swordfish strike is also one where the Bismarck was being pursued by a superior force and the FAA was actually an elite force an the Bismarck had relatively poor AA defences. So as Justin said, they did well to find and hit the Bismarck, yes they got quite lucky with the placement of the hit, but equally, if the torpedo had hit elsewhere it may also have done severe damage. The whole story of the Bismarck is one of luck "balancing out", essential the Kriegsmarine rolled a double 6 in destroying the Hood so quickly and the Prince of Wales being unfit for combat, and then snake eyes later in being crippled by that torpedo to the stern.

[baizen]

Reminds me heavily of an instance that occurred during WW1, when during one of the British offensives in the early-mid war, a battalion managed to completely break through the German defenses in a rather ill-defended and pierced a gap in the German lines from where they could have finally sent in the cavalry. They were lucky because that area just happened to be poorly defended, but afterwards they just sat there and awaited further instruction, because orders from above were to take a small area, hold it, and then take another small area. By the time they finally received new orders, the germans had already patched gap. Thus, they were presented with a "lucky" opportunity, but didn't properly seize the moment

[chrismcisaac]

I am in a France 1940-mood and just re-read Frieser's Blitzkrieg Legend and am re-reading Doughty's Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France.

1) Luftwaffe vs French Sorties - this was the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the French air force. They held much of their aircraft back because they thought it was going a long war and they felt holding back reserves in the interior would prevent the Germans from destroying the aircraft on the ground. The Luftwaffe went all in.

2) Doughty makes it clear that the break through is a straight up infantry fight between the best troops of the German army vs. French reserve troops.

3) It wasn't simply that French tanks were dispersed into an infantry support role. Their tanks didn't have much range as they were not seen as an operational arm. The Germans had a completely different experience on the eastern front in WW1. They fought a more mobile war there and never gave up faith in operational maneuver as a way of forcing a decision. The French planned to refight WW1.

Luck did play it's role...
The fact that Guderian is in Koblenz and Mainstein can sharpen the concept using Guderian's understanding of the panzer arm is lucky.

There's some luck involved in Mainstein's operational concept making it Hitler's ear despite the OKH's attempts to thwart Mainstein.

The fact that the French are so fixated on pushing into Belgium so as to avoid German occupation of the heavily industrialized areas of north eastern France plays a role. The French threw everything they had into Belgium. That included the reserve 7th army that was well placed to stop the panzer groups. The Germans threw everything they had into the French rear. It was the perfect plan for the situation. And it was ruthlessly executed despite the fears, and often the objections, of the German high command.

[martinkirk]

I read somewhere that during the battle of Sedan, part of the reason the French fell apart was that the battalion command post was destroyed by an artillery hit. Just luck? Not quite. The bunker they were in hadn't been properly reinforced (poor preparation), and no one stepped up to take charge (poor training). There's an element of luck involved, but without the French failures, that luck would have had much less of an impact

[HSMiyamoto]

At Jutland, where so many British battlecruisers were lost, the main reason historians *don't* credit German success to luck is that the Royal Navy investigated the disasters afterward. Consequently, we know that cordite was handled so recklessly during the battle that one "lucky" German shot could destroy an entire British capital ship. The Germans certainly didn't expect to cause so much damage on the RN, and they probably credited their success to their crews and not debited the British commanders. I guess that's human nature to overestimate the significance of your actions.

[JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

If I remember correctly Bismarck had radar detection systems on board the ship. Unfortunately the people commanding the ship didn't understand necessarily the difference between a radar detection system and the actual radar . They operated under the assumption if you could detect the signal then the radar could detect you. So since they were picking up radar signals from the British trailing ships they assumed they knew their position and so radio silence was a moot point.

[vladimpaler]

I think of luck as more randomness in nature. At Savo Island there was a significant failure of allied command structure. It is not lucky to be good at night fighting. Nor is it lucky to try an audacious night surprise attack. The Japanese had confidence in their night-fighting and belief in their superior organization. As a US citizen let us just admit the Japanese beat us there. We learned from our mistakes. No excuses.
Same in France 1940; the Germans were audacious and had excellent tactical organization. Going through the Ardennes was genius. Sometimes it is best to admit your opponent kicked your rear so you can learn. Ever tried to learn to be luckier??

[looinrims]

“I’m more of a plane and boat guy” -Justin