Blitzkrieg: Brilliant or obsolete?

[TacCovert4]

The famous Blitzkrieg doctrine invented by British Generals and then rejected by Whitehall as worthless. Used in France to grand effect, it was brought to its pinnacle in North Africa and then utilized by Patton's Third Army in France once again.

The question here is, by the timeframe for Combat Mission: Afrika Korps, was the Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine obsolete, or still as brillianly useful as it had been before? Provide evidence (not necessarily references) to support your answers.

I will post my own opinion once the discussion begins.

Don't you just love being given History Tests on Tactics?

[Lurker]

The blitzkrieg concept was still quite useful by that time frame. One of its ideas was to panic the enemy high command into rash reactions as only the leaders would get an over all grasp of the dangerous position they were in. On the other hand it was often far from obvious to the front liners who may have had no clue that their situation was inherently perilous.

It was also far more economical in terms of lives, time and energy invested. I think all large successes in terms of real estate had the blitzkrieg as it core, which Patton and Zukhov (spelling?) helped to prove as well as the German generals.

Besides, what was the alternative; finding your enemy and butting heads with him in a potential bloodbath? Overwhelming by air was not quite ready by that time. :)

[Mad Russian]

Since the time frame for CMAK is 1939 through 1945 the blitzkrieg was definately alive and well. It was, however, never used in North Africa, in Russia or in France 1944.

Blitzkrieg was a term coined by a reporter and not the German military. It was a mode of warfare that was used to describe a war of maneuver, and more importantly, the striking of the command and supply system as being more important than fighting your enemies soldiers.

In North Africa there was no way to break through and paralyze the command structure. In all cases it was out of reach of either sides forces. The distance behind the front of the locations of these targets was too great. North Africa was simply a series of hooks out into the desert, to by pass the coastal defense belts of the enemy forces, and make them pull back.

In Russia, the ability to break into the rear areas existed but the ability to paralyze the command and supply elements of the army did not. The Germans simply couldn't move fast enough to accomplish what they wanted to.

There were only four hard topped roads in the Soviet Union when the Germans invaded. IF, the Soviet road net had been as developed as the Western European road net was, then, blitzkrieg would have been unleashed and it woud have defeated the Soviet Union. As it was, there were these great encirclements that could not be sealed. And in December of 1941, when the Soviets launched their counterattack on the doors of Moscow, the Red Army was actually larger in manpower numbers than it was on 22 June of that same year.

Patton never used the true form of what Blitzkrieg meant. Only during the Brittany campaign did he even come close and during most of that time period he was not in contact with the units actually moving through the countryside. For most of the rest of Pattons career, he used a more fluid version of Montgomery's mass attack. He would mass an attack to gain freedom of movement and then rush as fast as he could into the hole. This created a situation of concern for the Germans and with the lack of resources at their disposal they had to withdraw.

Patton's main claim to fame is his desire to fight. Anywhere, anytime, with any German force. With the forces at his disposal vs the German resources, he was odds on favorite to win most of those attacks. A situation that Montgomery gets hammered for. Where Patton made it work was his relentless desire to keep the pressure on the Gemans and not let them setup a defense in front of him. Montgomery did not have that same drive.

In the German Army, as a panzer general, Patton would have probably been mediocre. It would have depended on whether he got a choice assignment like Rommel did or not, as to whether he would have stood out. His willingness to fight would probably still have made him noticable. His skill as a commander may not have.

So, in answer to your question...Blitzkrieg as such died in France in 1940. Any and all combat actions that resulted in the front being broken and forces moving into the gap are not blitzkrieg by definition. That has been going on for centuries and is nothing new.

The Soviets never practiced Blitzkrieg. They had geographical locations for the objectives for every single one of their offensives. They never practiced the art of striking at the nerve center of the German Army. They used a hammer not a rapier. They smashed the German forces in front of them and then drove into the hole until the Germans could put something in front of them or they ran out supplies and had to stop.

I eagerly await your own comments TacCovert4. Now that you have baited the discussion but had nothing to add until all the opinions have been handed in.....

While you wait send me my turn!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

I have to disagree on your definition of Blitzkrieg and say it was most definitely used in Russia and in a sense in NA.

This from Wikipedia has been my understanding of it:

"
Blitzkrieg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/De-blitzkrieg.ogg) (help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help)·info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:De-blitzkrieg.ogg)) (German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language), literally lightning war or flash war) is a popular name for an offensive operational-level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_warfare) military doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine) which involves an initial bombardment followed by the employment of mobile forces attacking with speed and surprise to prevent an enemy from implementing a coherent defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_%28military%29). The founding principles of these types of operations were developed in the 19th Century by various nations, and adapted in the years after World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I), largely by the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht), to incorporate modern weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_weapons) and vehicles as a method to help avoid the stalemate of trench warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare) and linear warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_battle) in future conflicts. The first practical implementations of these concepts coupled with modern technology were instituted by the Wehrmacht in the opening theatres of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). The strategy was particularly effective in the invasions of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France), The Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands) and initial operations in the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa). These operations were dependent on surprise penetrations, general enemy unpreparedness and an inability to react swiftly enough to German offensive operations. That the German Army quickly defeated numerically and technically superior enemies in France led many analysts to believe that a new system of warfare had been invented.
The generally accepted definition of blitzkrieg operations include the use of maneuver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare) rather than attrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare) to defeat an opponent, and describe operations using combined arms concentration of mobile assets at a focal point, armour closely supported by mobile infantry, artillery and close air support assets. These tactics required the development of specialized support vehicles, new methods of communication, new tactics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics), and an effective decentralized command structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_structure). Broadly speaking, blitzkrieg operations required the development of mechanized infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_infantry), self-propelled artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_artillery) and engineering assets that could maintain the rate of advance of the tanks. German forces avoided direct combat in favor of interrupting an enemy's communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication), decision-making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making), logistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics) and of reducing morale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morale). In combat, blitzkrieg left little choice for the slower defending forces but to clump into defensive pockets that were encircled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encirclement) and then destroyed by following German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry).
Tactically speaking, once the weakest area of defence is identified, tactical bombers would strike at logistical, communication, and supply targets while field and self-propelled artillery units struck at defence installations. These bombardments were then pre-ceded by probing attacks and smoke screens to conceal the main armoured spearhead, and once the main armoured force broke through the designated strike area, motorized infantry would then fan out behind the armoured spearhead to capture or destroy any enemy forces encircled by panzer and mechanized infantry units or tactically important objectives like bridges, airfields, supply depots, rail yards, naval ports, anti-aircraft batteries, and radar installations.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&action=edit&section=1)] Etymology and modern meaning

"Blitzkrieg" is a German compound meaning "lightning war". The word did not enter official terminology of the Wehrmacht either before or during the war, even though it was already used in the military Journal "Deutsche Wehr" in 1935, in the context of an article on how states with insufficient food and raw materials supply can win a war. Another appearance is in 1938 in the "Militär-Wochenblatt", where Blitzkrieg is defined as a "strategic attack", carried out by operational use of tanks, air force, and airborne troops. Karl-Heinz Frieser in his book 'Blitzkrieg Legende', who researched the origin of the term and found the above examples, points out that the pre-war use of the term is rare, and that it practically never entered official terminology throughout the war.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#_note-0)
It was first popularised in the English-speaking world by the American newsmagazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmagazine) TIME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28magazine%29) describing the 1939 German invasion of Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29). Published on September 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_25) 1939, well into the campaign, the account reads:
The battlefront got lost, and with it the illusion that there had ever been a battlefront. For this was no war of occupation, but a war of quick penetration and obliteration—Blitzkrieg, lightning war. Swift columns of tanks and armored trucks had plunged through Poland while bombs raining from the sky heralded their coming. They had sawed off communications, destroyed animal, scattered civilians, spread terror. Working sometimes 30 miles (50 km) ahead of infantry and artillery, they had broken down the Polish defenses before they had time to organize. Then, while the infantry mopped up, they had moved on, to strike again far behind what had been called the front.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#_note-1) Military historians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history) have defined blitzkrieg as the employment of the concepts of maneuver and combined arms warfare developed in Germany during both the interwar period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interwar_period) and the Second World War. Strategically, the ideal was to swiftly effect an adversary's collapse through a short campaign fought by a small, professional army. Operationally, its goal was to use indirect means, such as, mobility and shock, to render an adversary's plans irrelevant or impractical. To do this, self-propelled formations of tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks); motorized infantry, engineers, artillery; and ground-attack aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_attack_aircraft) operated as a combined-arms team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms). Historians have termed it a period form of the longstanding German principle of Bewegungskrieg, or movement war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare).
"Blitzkrieg" has since expanded into multiple meanings in more popular usage. From its original military definition, "blitzkrieg" may be applied to any military operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operation) emphasizing the surprise, speed, or concentration stressed in accounts of the Invasion of Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_%281939%29). During the war, the Luftwaffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe) terror bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing) of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) came to be known as The Blitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz). Similarly, blitz has come to describe the "blitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_%28American_football%29)" (rush) tactic of American football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football), and the blitz form of chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_chess) in which players are allotted very little time. Blitz or blitzkrieg is used in many other non-military contexts."

[Mad Russian]

Military historians have defined blitzkrieg as the employment of the concepts of maneuver and combined arms warfare developed in Germany during both the interwar period and the Second World War. Strategically, the ideal was to swiftly effect an adversary's collapse through a short campaign fought by a small, professional army.

What part of this applies to Russia, North Africa or France 1944?

Where was the swift collapse? Where was the short campaign? The shortest one was France 1944 and the German Army got away!

Parts of Wikipedia's definition are just outright wrong as well. The concept was not developed by the Germans but the British. It was copied by the Germans and implemented by the Germans but it was NOT developed by the Germans.

Good Hunting.

MR

[freightshaker]

"Military historians have defined blitzkrieg as the employment of the concepts of maneuver and combined arms warfare developed in Germany during both the interwar period and the Second World War. Strategically, the ideal was to swiftly effect an adversary's collapse through a short campaign fought by a small, professional army."

Actually this wasn't a new concept. Blitzkrieg was nothing more than traditional Prussian tactics developed by Fredrick the Great adapted to modern technology. The same operational art was used during the Ludendorff Offensive in WW1, the Prussian invasion of France during the Franco-Prussian war, the Seven Years War, and was created and tested during the First Northern War at the Battle of Warsaw. Same tactics, different weapons. By the time of North Africa, Blitzkrieg was still effective but I believe Montgomery was the one to find the defensive solution by incorporating a strong positional defense with mobile reserves to the rear.

[Lurker]

What part of this applies to Russia, North Africa or France 1944?

Where was the swift collapse? Where was the short campaign? The shortest one was France 1944 and the German Army got away!

Parts of Wikipedia's definition are just outright wrong as well. The concept was not developed by the Germans but the British. It was copied by the Germans and implemented by the Germans but it was NOT developed by the Germans.

Good Hunting.

MR"Strategically, the ideal was ..." answers your first question. This does not imply that the ideal was always obtained. Also read the part that says "The generally accepted definition of blitzkrieg operations include... ", so based on that much applies.

As to development, of course the Germans developed it! It may have been a Brit concept but it was the Germans that developed it and put it into effect. Development doesn't mean "created the initial concept of".

[Mad Russian]

By the time of North Africa, Blitzkrieg was still effective but I believe Montgomery was the one to find the defensive solution by incorporating a strong positional defense with mobile reserves to the rear.

Montgomery wasn't the one that set the 8th Army on the El Alamein line. He was the one who came out of it.

The only thing that stopped the offensives of either the Germans or the British was the inability to outflank the others line in the desert. When that happened all the war of motion was over for the Germans. Rommel studied naval tactics for his fighting in the desert. Hit the enemy in the flank. In the desert it was always open and as long as it was both sides used it. Then it was simply a war of supplies. Who owned enough gasoline and ammunition and tanks to attack this month....

Nice history of the operational strategies that evolved into blitzkrieg.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

"Strategically, the ideal was ..." answers your first question. This does not imply that the ideal was always obtained. Also read the part that says "The generally accepted definition of blitzkrieg operations include... ", so based on that much applies.

As to development, of course the Germans developed it! It may have been a Brit concept but it was the Germans that developed it and put it into effect. Development doesn't mean "created the initial concept of".

I don't understand your first comment....blitzkrieg is at best an operational mode of attack. Not a strategic one. Blitzkrieg could care less how many tanks you were making, or what the size or your army is. The goal of blitzkrieg is to paralyze your army into inactivity or the inability to have command and control over it. Then the enemy forces can be dealt with in any form that you wish.

I believe the Israelis used blitzkrieg in the 1973 war but nothing comes close in WWII after 1940.

The one major component of blitzkrieg is the rapid destruction of an enemies forces by the paralyzing of his forces. When did that happen in North Africa, or Russia, any other time in WWII? Anything after France 1940????

When was an opponent paralyzed while his forces were destroyed and the campaign brought to a speedy and decisive conclusion?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

I don't understand your first comment....blitzkrieg is at best an operational mode of attack. Not a strategic one.
We're quibbling semantics here. Operational (in this case) is a concept that is put into effect by concrete strategies, these strategies comprising the collective tactics of blitzkrieg. There are apparently varying definitions of blitzkrieg and your impression of it is the first one I've heard that limits it to an over-all general concept that fails to be so if it doesn't fully succeed. The ultimate goal of bltzkrieg is one thing. Implementing it in an effort to achieve that goal is the thing itself.

[Mad Russian]

We're quibbling semantics here. Operational (in this case) is a concept that is put into effect by concrete strategies, these strategies comprising the collective tactics of blitzkrieg. There are apparently varying definitions of blitzkrieg and your impression of it is the first one I've heard that limits it to an over-all general concept that fails to be so if it doesn't fully succeed.

But the question posed by TacCovert4 was not if it was still trying to be used but if it was successful.

The question here is, by the timeframe for Combat Mission: Afrika Korps, was the Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine obsolete, or still as brillianly useful as it had been before? Provide evidence (not necessarily references) to support your answers.

The words operational and strategic do not mean the same thing in military terms. That's why I wasn't sure what you were getting at. I have seen it offered that Blitzkrieg was a strategic weapon. I agree with that in the context that if I put a tank or a bomb on your factory I get a strategic result. I stop you from building tanks there.

I think that the Germans tried unsucessfully to be use it in Russia for the first two years. I also think they were surprised when it didn't work. Hitler most of all. Since he was not a military man, he couldn't get the grasp of why the system didn't work, and couldn't figure out how to fix it. In the process he ignored those that could have fixed the problem. Or at least put a bandaid on it.

The Americans also tried to use it to a degree. But again, unsucessfully. The reasons I think it didn't work are two fold.

In Russia, the depth of the country kept the initial encirclements from being decisive. In many cases those encirclements were the depth of most of France. In the west that was a decisive action. In Russia it was not.

Nothing like blitzkrieg ever showed up in North Africa. Merely creating a fluid situation does not describe the blitzkrieg concept. That does describe almost all of the fighting in North Africa.

In France 1944, the Americans were not after a lightning war. Eisenhower told his generals that they would advance on a broad front and he pretty much made that happen. Again, the closest they ever came was the Brittany campaign. But during that campaign the Americans were simply driving out into a void. They were not going to win the campaign and bring the war to a close with it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kawaiku]

I read this in a WWII Magazine Issue but I can't seem to locate it and I did find it on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29
It talks about Zhukov's first successful attempt at maneuver warfare against the Japanese(albeit with their "help" too).
Soviet doctrine relied upon using mass concentrations of armour in the shape of a box. Light tank units would be the front of the box with medium tanks such as the T-28 constituting the rest of the formation. Behind the main box, the Soviet forces followed on with infantry supported by heavy tanks also arranged in a box configuration.
I really can't contribute to the immediate discussion, but I think that this might be an interesting source for you guys to look at.

[Lurker]

But the question posed by TacCovert4 was not if it was still trying to be used but if it was successful.

I think that the Germans tried unsucessfully to be use it in Russia for the first two years. I also think they were surprised when it didn't work. Hitler most of all. Since he was not a military man, he couldn't get the grasp of why the system didn't work, and couldn't figure out how to fix it. In the process he ignored those that could have fixed the problem. Or at least put a bandaid on it.

The Americans also tried to use it to a degree. But again, unsucessfully. The reasons I think it didn't work are two fold.

In Russia, the depth of the country kept the initial encirclements from being decisive. In many cases those encirclements were the depth of most of France. In the west that was a decisive action. In Russia it was not.I haven't had a chance to respond until now. :)
I think the criteria I'm getting from this as to whether or not it was a blitzkrieg is did it succeed. If blitzkrieg strategy and tactics are used and the result is a fast decisivie victory then it's a blitzkrieg, otherwise it isn't?

This is where we disagree. I think I reversed my strategic and operational levels earlier. The strategic concept of a blitzkrieg is just an idea. This idea is broken down into the operational elements necessary to attain the ultimate goal. These elements, designed by generals in their war room, have to break down further into the needed tactics to accomplish all of this, and these are conducted by the poor buggers who have to die trying to get the job done using these tactics.

In other words a blitzkrieg style of war is a strategy comprising operations using a set of known tactics. Regardless of the outcome, it's the operation and tactics employed that define blitzkrieg as it became known in WWII. I'm sure today if the US were to nuke an enemy at the begining of the war and get an immediate surrender then some may be justified in calling that a blitzkrieg, as it will have been "lightning" like, but it will also be far removed from the original concept of the strategy and tactics that originated the term.

Based on the above, what I consider a blitzkrieg is were these (strategy, operation and tactics) used and were they successful? And by success I do not mean did they win the war outright, because that's irrelevant. On the east front both sides employed these to great success in terms of territory / objectives gained, enemies put out of commision and greater difficulties presented to the enemy. So in that regard the answer is yes, it was used and quite successfully.

In any case, I think I'm repeating my self and this is going in circles. :blab: :)

[Mad Russian]

To me blitzkrieg is an operational weapon aimed at achieving strategic results.

A blitzkrieg style attack is an attack that combines airpower and maneuver ground forces to paralyze and then destroy the enemies ability to defend itself.

1) The airforce is used to isolate the battlefield, destroy the command and control structure of the enemy force.

2) Force a breakthrough of the enemies defenses enough to allow for freedom of movement of the attacking forces. That freedom of movement is to serve a three fold purpose. First, to allow the frontline forces to be destroyed in encirclements. Second, to penetrate deeper into enemy territory at a speed that the enemy cannot respond to because of the damage done to his command structure. Third, to destroy the enemy forces to such an extent that the campaign is short and decisive.

This is completely different that just a battle of motion or a penetration and then advance into the void style of combat.

I think if you look at what the Germans accomplished in France 1940 you have all of these ingredients. I don't believe you ever get them again in WWII.

I think the problem lies in what each person views the definition of blitzkrieg to be.

Interesting discussion either way.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

It seems to me the fellow that started all this never said a word about it. How about it Tac? :)

[Mad Russian]

Was looking for a better description of what I think Blitzkrieg means for me and In volume 1 of History of the Second World War is what I consider to be an excellent description of the term.

Blitzkrieg comes in four phases:

Phase 1: Holding infantry keeps defenders occupied along whole length of the front to conceal mass of attacking armor. Having complete air superiority. Dive bombers act as long-range artillery to isolate the battleground, cutting off defender reserves and silencing defending guns, Armored spearhead with engineers and shock troops advance, concentrate at the first objective. Paratroops may be dropped.

Phase 2: Assault troops and engineers destroy defending strongpoints where possible and widen the breakthrough. Armor starts to move through the enemy defenses. Motorized infantry and artillery follow the armor. Cleaning up the remaining opposition in the initial breakthrough area and holding the flanks. Dive bombers clear the areas in advance of the armored attacks and continue with attacks on communications and reserves.

Phase 3: Armored speadhead clears through the enemy defenses, fans out and bypasses enemy strong points. Some engage enemy rear echelon units until the motorized infantry moves up. Main armored thrusts continue deeper into enemy territory capturing key road and rail junctions, paralyzing supply, reserve and command units.

Every effort must be made to capture or encircle defending units. Not allowing them to fall back to new defensive positions.

Phase 4: The first three phases have been carried out along the entire front at intervals. Spearheads are then driven deep into enemy territory towards key cities and towns. Motorized infantry follows the armor to maintain communications and reduce strong points.

Here is a paragraph that I thought was telling:

Blitzkrieg with its tactics of speed and shock, was a fresh approach to war, and the overwhelming success of its debut in the Polish campaign surprised not only the Poles but the Germans themselves. Never before had a nations military capacity been so utterly annihilated in so short a time, with so few casualties to the victor.

So, when the Germans applied this operational use of airpower, tanks and motorized infantry against the French and it worked again they thought they were set for world domination.

What they weren't ready for was the fact that the army that was being fought had to have a highly developed command structure, that the fight had to take place in a small area or that they might not be able to gain air superiority or support their ground troops with decisive airpower.

In the case of the Russian front, the blitzkrieg application was applied early on but failed. Because the Soviets did not have a highly developed command structure and the country was far too large to be able to apply one of the main ingredients. Airpower. The Luftwaffe simply found it impossible to keep up with the advance, and support the concentration of force that was used in the west, in Russia. There were initial applications that did result in the great encirclements, but they did not decide the campaign in the east, as they had in the west. Space, an underdeveloped road system, a fairly simplistic command structure and the inability of the Luftwaffe to concentrate as it had in the West saved the Soviet Union.

The Germans tried using the Blitzkrieg formula as late as 1943 at Kursk. Still trying to regain that old magic touch. But now it was impossible to catch entire airforces on the ground, to blow holes in the main lines and advance for 100's of kilometers deep into the rear of the enemy lines. Complete air superiority could no longer be achieved.

In North Africa almost all of the ingredients are missing. There were no major breakthroughs of enemy lines...most battles were simply outflanking maneuvers into the desert. There were no major cities to capture. There was no command structure that could be reached and paralyzed most of the time.
Complete air superiority was rarely if ever achieved.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

In the case of the Russian front, the blitzkrieg application was applied early on but failed.
That was a good view of blitzkrieg MR but this sentence is where I disagree. The Germans applied all of that to great success, repeatedly striking deep and capturing large numbers time and again with minimal losses, relatively speaking. I consider that very successful operationally. That they didn't win the war wasn't a failing of blitzkrieg itself if you consider so many of the anti-blitzkrieg decisions made by Hitler. It was these decisions arguably that cost them, not any failing of blitkrieg operations.

Also Kursk wasn't a blitzkrieg, which emphasizes hitting weak points with the standard follow up. Kursk was a strong point if Von Manstien's 'Lost Victories' is accurate. The Allies were feeding the Russians Ultra intercepts on the exact timetables of the Kursk offensive including all of the delays and down to the exact hour of the final jump off. As a result the entire area was heavily fortified against an armored offensive, which is the antithesis of a blitzkrieg.

[Mad Russian]

That was a good view of blitzkrieg MR but this sentence is where I disagree. The Germans applied all of that to great success, repeatedly striking deep and capturing large numbers time and again with minimal losses, relatively speaking. I consider that very successful operationally. That they didn't win the war wasn't a failing of blitzkrieg itself if you consider so many of the anti-blitzkrieg decisions made by Hitler. It was these decisions arguably that cost them, not any failing of blitkrieg operations.

Also Kursk wasn't a blitzkrieg, which emphasizes hitting weak points with the standard follow up. Kursk was a strong point if Von Manstien's 'Lost Victories' is accurate. The Allies were feeding the Russians Ultra intercepts on the exact timetables of the Kursk offensive including all of the delays and down to the exact hour of the final jump off. As a result the entire area was heavily fortified against an armored offensive, which is the antithesis of a blitzkrieg.

The blitzkrieg form of combat failed because had Russia been smaller the destruction of the army would have been complete. The reason that bad decisions were made was the Red Army refused to cooperate and die. When it kept fighting after being hit time and again with what should have been knockout blows things started to unravel. Hence, blitzkrieg did not succeed in it's objective. It did not knock Russia out of the war as intended and so failed.

And while it is true that the Soviets knew about the attack at Kursk the Germans didn't know the extent of those preparations and they tried again to use the blitzkrieg formula. Just because it failed doesn't mean that it was tried. It failed in 1941 too but you want to use that example.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

The blitzkrieg form of combat failed because had Russia been smaller the destruction of the army would have been complete. To use a line from Mandy Patamkin in "Princess Bride" - 'You keep using that word (failed). I don't think it means what you think it means'. :D :)

It can be said the desire of most wars is to win them and to do so as quickly as possible, but that doesn't make them blitzkriegs or not. And if a side uses blitzkrieg tactics during a war it doesn't mean they will not have to use other tactics as well. To decide that we are only going to use blitzkrieg in this war is not too realistic I think. Therefore you cannot call an entire war a blitzkrieg or not a blitzkrieg and use that to point a finger at any failure.

Using your logic for success/failure we would therefore have to say that blitzkrieg was never successful during WWII because Germany ultimately lost the war. Though they KO'd Poland decisively that caused the Brits to start the war by declaring on Germany. And though they KO'd France decisively Hitler made a big anti-blitzkrieg blunder by halting before an undefended Dunkirk and allowing the BEF to abandon their heavy equipment and race back to the port for it's defense. Allowing the blitz to continue would have knocked the BEF out of the war and they would not have had to fight that group a second time in NA, which cost them 200,000+ troops eventually surrendering in Tunisia. So that must be considered a failure too. :confused:

The reason that bad decisions were made was the Red Army refused to cooperate and die. When it kept fighting after being hit time and again with what should have been knockout blows things started to unravel. Hence, blitzkrieg did not succeed in it's objective. It did not knock Russia out of the war as intended and so failed. Bltzrieg was phenomenally successful in Russia. Tiny Germany drove deep into the heart of a leviathan and arguably came very close to the KO. Because Hitler made some extreme lame-ass blunders cannot be realistically said to be because of any failure on the blitzkrieg when they did use it. As I said, you cannot expect to use one type of warfare everywhere and at all times.

And while it is true that the Soviets knew about the attack at Kursk the Germans didn't know the extent of those preparations and they tried again to use the blitzkrieg formula. Just because it failed doesn't mean that it was tried. If we use the outline of a blitzkrieg method of attack then we need a weak point that the attacker can punch through the line followed by rapid exploitation. There were no weak points in the Kursk salient. The Russians knew what was coming and were well prepared and so blitzkrieg in it's true style was never employed. That was simply an A/D.




I get the feeling we are not going to agree on any of this. :)

[Warhammer]

My .02 in here...

I think one concept that Mad Russian is missing is that Command & Control was never really hit by the Germans during 1940 in France. If anyone went after Command and Control in WWII it was the WAllies in 44.

What the Germans did in France in 1940, they used their air force in close support of their army to create a breakthrough. This is really no different than what was attempted in WWI, but the difference is that with air power, and dive bombers you were able to hit precise targets locations. Once the breakthrough was achieved, the armored spearheads were to drive deep into the allied formation to keep them off balance.

This was actually an outgrowth of the infiltration tactics Ludendorf used during WWI. Once through the initial lines, the forward forces would rush like water and would go around strongpoints, which would be mopped up by the second line forces.

What happened to the Allies in France 40 is that the situation was so fluid. No one had fought a war in which information that you went to act upon was already out of date. There were plenty of local counterattacks led by local commanders, DeGaulle led one that paniced the German High Command near Sedan IIRC.

The problem though was that the German spearheads moved so fast, and that caused a collapse in the morale of the French High Command. The Germans didn't target Command and Control points, HQs, or anything else. It all happened due to the speed of the advance. Heck, the German commanders actually had a hard time keeping up with their own units, hence the moniker of the "Ghost Division" because they had outrun the range of their radios.

[KG_AirborneBob]

As mentioned before...It was a doctrine new to not jsut the allies..but to the germans as well...were they as surprised as everyone that it actually produced tangible results??!!(Poland and the Low countries to be percise). But the Americans are famous for taking a hold of something and then really taking it to the next level.....

[TacCovert4]

It seems to me the fellow that started all this never said a word about it. How about it Tac? :)

I find that when you start a discussion and state an opinion, you polarize yourself too much. I wanted a good natured discussion, and that is what we got.

[TacCovert4]

I would like to contend that in North Africa, the Blitz was used at least once. Early North Africa, in '41, Gen. Rommel hit General Neame's British forces. The battle turned into a swirling furball true, but in the end the Germans had gained a tremendous amount of territory, the high command in Alexandria was struggling to keep up with developments, and General Neame himself was sacked. I call that a command breakdown on the highest levels. You must take into account that Noth Africa was a corps level theater and France was an army level theater, but the breach in the British command during the spring of '41 was just as wide for the in theater command system as the breach during '40 in France. Not as profound because there was still coherent command at the army level, but in a micro sense, blitzkrieg had occured.

The same with the breakout from Normandy which resulted in the Falaise gap. The combination of pressing infantry, deep penetrating mobile forces and Jabos resulted in a complete loss of command in that sector of the German operations. True it was corps level not army, but it was still a microblitz.

My opinion is that blitzkrieg is a multilevel strategy, capable of being use strategically, operationally, or tactically. Its tenets are a decisive point, mobility, combined arms, and deep strike, all applied simultaneously. Blitzkrieg as a doctrine for war on the grand strategy level is a abberation made by the media in the post 1940 world and takes away from the flexibility of the blitzkrieg concept.

[Lurker]

My opinion is that blitzkrieg is a multilevel strategy, capable of being use strategically, operationally, or tactically. Its tenets are a decisive point, mobility, combined arms, and deep strike, all applied simultaneously. Blitzkrieg as a doctrine for war on the grand strategy level is a abberation made by the media in the post 1940 world and takes away from the flexibility of the blitzkrieg concept.I couldn't agree more. :smoke:

[KG_AirborneBob]

Look what it has evovled into..."Shock & Awe"...I was proud to be part of Swartzkoff's forces in Desert Storm..the 1st modern day Blitzkreig....:salute: