BlitzKreig: Everything

I jsut would like to see what guys on here think abotu Blitzkreig, we've all heard of it, and i'm sure many have some interestin stuff to say abotu it.


Pretty much put anything you want, it's limitations, it's good points, where it's superior, where it is a failure. anyway i just want to see what everybody on here thinks about blitzkrieg, so START POSTING PEOPLE!

Are you talking about Blitzkrieg as in "lightning war" in WW 2?

Blitzkrieg was used by the Nazis as a form of a reaction to the way WW1 was fought.
Hitler realised the stagnant trench warfare of WW1 was not very effective.
He wanted to create a fast moving force to speed up the realisation of his Crazy plans.
It worked well,for a time,but sieges like Stalingrad and Monte Casino didnt suit the Blitzkrieg method too well...Thank God.

Blitzkreig was supremely effective to begin with, but it wasnt a particularly innvovative stategy.

World war one was fought with tactics origionally developed during the napoleonic period. None of the participating armies where mechanized and the war was fought with monolithic companies of rifle infantrymen, that had no new tactics to deal with technical advances such as the machine gun. Even supplies and ammunition were brought to the frontline on horseback, and artillery bombardments(using lumbering, horse drawn guns) took days of labour and planning to organise and execute, so all in all, war was bound to be pretty slow anyway.

As for blitzkreig, it wasnt really any new tactics, just the first effective deployment of mechanized forces, utilising advanced tanks (The german panzers vastly outperformed allied tanks initially) mechanized infantry, and the use of dive bombers to perfrom the role of artillery. The blitzkrieg invasions of Poland etc. moved at the speed they did mainly beacuase of these new technologies.
Ok, the fact they use combined arms, i.e coordination of divebombers, infantry and armour toward a common target, contributed much to its effectiveness, but this still wasnt a new idea.
The macedonians and assyrians succesfully combined heavy and light infantry and cavalry on the battlefield thousands of years ago.

All in all, Blitzkreig won the day because the Nazis were the first to modernize and mechanize theyre enitre army, coordinate all its elements effectivley, and deploy it. From world war 2 onwards all armies have done the same. Look at Shock and Awe.....

Shock and Awe has similarities to Blitzkrieg but it's different in that it attempts to influence a wider spectrum of categories.

Shock and awe, technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of "overwhelming decisive force", "dominant battlefield awareness", "dominant maneuvers", and "spectacular displays of power" to "paralyze" an adversary's preception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James. P. Wade and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States.

The military operation named "shock and awe" began the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Debate exists as to whether or not this operation was actually a rapid dominance campaign and truly elicited shock and awe.

Source

Other Sources
Iraq and the Future of Warfare (PDF)
Shock and Awe (PDF
Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (PDF)

[edit on 17-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Hmm yeah interesting point, but obviosuly shock and awe isnt going to be a carbon copy of blitzkreig. But without blitzkreig there would have been no shock and awe. Having said that, if there hadnt been Blitzkreig, there would have been some sort of equivalent. Mechanzization/combined arms was inveitable.

having said THAT, shock and awe is more effective in that america has its logistics well and truly sorted, and didnt end up moving so fast it outran its supply lines and left them vunerable as what happened in operation barbarossa

Blitzkreig or 'Lightening War', was not a new conception, if you consider the Sturmtruppen of the German Imperial Army of WWI.

The 'close assault' groups or Grenadiers were tasked was to locate, fix and if possible, destroy enemy machinegun emplacements, command bunkers and forward artillery observation trenches or posts and also to find and secure weak points in allied wire and trench systems, allowing the heavier infantry to push through.

Their groups were always small in number and were never fully supported either by machineguns or artillery so were virtually ineffective. But it was a sound idea.

Blitzkreig itself was innovative in that it was the first time the German armed forces operated as 'one' unit and, as TheSilentProtagonist stated, it was the first effective deployment of mechanized forces, utilising advanced tanks (The german panzers vastly outperformed allied tanks initially) mechanized infantry, and the use of dive bombers to perfrom the role of artillery.

One must remember that most of the Wehrmacht and early Waffen-SS units were horse-drawn, as was the artillery and that the A1 and A2 Echelons - Supply and Administration.

Indeed, only the so called elite units such as the LSSAH, Das Reich and the Gross Deutschland Panzergrenadier regiments were almost fully mechanized and even then, most trucks were of the early '30s vintage.

Having said that, I do take issue with you TheSilentProtagonist, when you say the German tanks vastly outperformed allied tanks initially. They didn't! The PzKpfw Mk I were lightly armoured and mounted twin MG 34s whilst the Mk IIs, were armed with a 20cm cannon and a single MG 34 and had slightly thicker frontal armour.

When confronted by the superior French Char 'B' and the British Matilda, they usually came off second best. It was the superior German tactics of combined operations that gave the Germans the edge over the Anglo-French armour because the Brits and French did not know how to utilise their armour effectively.

With regards to the Gulf War, the so called 'Shock and Awe' posted by WestPoint23
is almost certainly derived from Blitzkreig - overwhelming forces of armour, mechanized infantry, tracked and towed artillery and superior aircraft, all combined to deliver a 'Blitzkreig' against an inferior enemy.

Had the Iraqis been similarly equipped, trained, and better led, I often wonder what would have happened.

i've read a bunch about Blitzkrieg, and have watched videos and documentaries abotu WWII many times over... and this is what i think about it:

Blitzkreig is the use of tanks and Mechanized infantry(infantry combined with APCs) to insure a swift drive to a prized target such as a capital city, without the hassle of a frontline or static warfare. Blitzkrieg combines Paratroopers and dive bombers and ground attack role aircraft to encircle, trap, and disorganize the enemy. it is a very effective strategy if a campaign would end in less than 2-3 months as long as terrain and weather are favorable, the campaign could probably last a max of 5 months if enough supplies and resources are available, and if the campaign is carried out with enough force. Air superiority is imperative in a Blitzkrieg, as the aerial role is crucial.

however limitations include as said before, logistics, time frame, weather and aerial non-superiority, and terrain. Blitzkreig would work best on a summer or spring weather, a plain terrain, not too rocky, and not marshy or anything, logistics can only be stretched so far and must be able to keep up with the armys attacking, and of course the time frame is to insure good weather and that logistics and momentum do not fade away.

The Blitz was very very effective for a time. Shock and Awe is the new age version of it. Tech has changed since WW2 and the most effective way to win the war is through the Air...I personally think NK has an intresting tatic they are going to try, its called the "gun and run"

Good answer fritz - I wrote something similar but the 'puter pixies ate it.

TheSilentProtagonist - where to start? so much of what you posted is just plain wrong!

WW1

The idea that there was no innovation during WW1 is just plain wrong. The innovation in weaponry, tactics and troop deployment were staggering all in just 4 short years. Train, canal and light rail were all used to transport ammunition, troops travelled by train and motor transport as well as marching.

WW2

France had vastly more tanks than Germany at the start of WW2 (actually more than Germany and UK combined) and as fritz says they were of much higher quality.

German infantry was never fully mechanised at any point during WW2. Even the SS were never fully mechanised.

German mechanised theory was copied from the UK who had the first mechanised infantry / armour force ithe World. Germany copied these ideas while the UK disbanded its mechanised force - read Guderian he's quite clear on this point.

The real innovation of Blitzkrieg was the use of air power instead of artillery - hence Sedan

Originally posted by fritz
Had the Iraqis been similarly equipped, trained, and better led, I often wonder what would have happened.

Then it be comparing to destruction of Iraq's military during Gulf War 1 where American led coalition routed Iraq's military with combine AirLand Battle that lasted about 100hrs prior to surrendering. But if you are thinking of Iraq's military having the same abilities as America's then it be a war of attrition.

In terms of technological ability in the eras they represent..
blitzkreig and shock and awe were the same things.

Both utilised the latest in technological advancements for military, to quickly assertain control of a country.

Hitler used primitive tanks and machines,
we used our jets, bombers, hummers, apc's

either way, both gave the invading country complete control, with little loss of life, while completely sapping the moral of the enemy, or the occupied nation

Originally posted by Strangerous
Good answer fritz - I wrote something similar but the 'puter pixies ate it.

TheSilentProtagonist - where to start? so much of what you posted is just plain wrong!

WW1

The idea that there was no innovation during WW1 is just plain wrong. The innovation in weaponry, tactics and troop deployment were staggering all in just 4 short years. Train, canal and light rail were all used to transport ammunition, troops travelled by train and motor transport as well as marching.

WW2

France had vastly more tanks than Germany at the start of WW2 (actually more than Germany and UK combined) and as fritz says they were of much higher quality.

German infantry was never fully mechanised at any point during WW2. Even the SS were never fully mechanised.

German mechanised theory was copied from the UK who had the first mechanised infantry / armour force ithe World. Germany copied these ideas while the UK disbanded its mechanised force - read Guderian he's quite clear on this point.

The real innovation of Blitzkrieg was the use of air power instead of artillery - hence Sedan

Germany didn't copy from the UK, yes some was derived from the UK, yet the idea and tactics of Blitzkreig were mostly German. nevertheless, as for the french well they sure had tanks, but they were from WWI, the aircraft was old and fromt eh days of WWI as well, you see you canb't have weapons from 20 years back and still expect the same result. also look at the polish campaign, the polish army had 36 groups, while the germans had only six, yet the 36 groups didn't have half the weapons and technology and tools that the 6 german groups had, see what i'm saying... but yes Germany military was never fully mechanized....

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
In terms of technological ability in the eras they represent..
blitzkreig and shock and awe were the same things.

Both utilised the latest in technological advancements for military, to quickly assertain control of a country.

Hitler used primitive tanks and machines,
we used our jets, bombers, hummers, apc's

either way, both gave the invading country complete control, with little loss of life, while completely sapping the moral of the enemy, or the occupied nation

btw tiger tanks and Tiger II and other German tanks are considered some of the best ever created, and they are the predecessors of the current German MBT, the Leopard I II.

Blitzkreig is still alive and well in current Brit tactical doctrine, albeit on a much smaller scale:

Find, Fix, Secure and Destroy.

Find - by reconnaissance - sattelites and air, Spec Ops, OPs, foot or armoured patrol,

Fix - by keeping the enemy force in it's current location,

Secure - let nothing escape or reinforce - may include cordoning, esp villages, towns or cities,

Destroy - with conventional arms - air power, tube or rocket artillery, then assault with armour and mechanised infantry.

All the above are the fundamentals of Blitzkreig. In WWII, the Russians took Blitzkreig to a higher level, with massed air and artillery attacks, coupled with massive armoured formations before finally, sending in the infantry.

I would say, that it was the Russians who invented Shock and Awe warefare.

Originally posted by INc2006

btw tiger tanks and Tiger II and other German tanks are considered some of the best ever created, and they are the predecessors of the current German MBT, the Leopard I II.

So ive heard, the shermans were no match for them, numbers were the key.

Having not seen and heard what we have today..
Imagine being a peasant farmer, hearing a rumbling only to see a hundered of these steal beasts rolling towards you at lightning speed destroying everything around you.....

sorry strange, maybe i wasnt clear in writing that.

In no way do i think theres was no innovation in world war 1, thats not what i meant to claim. I meant that WW2 Blitzkreig was no great innovation, just the natural result of mechanizing an army and streamlining and coodinating it.

In ww1 we saw the advent of the tank, gaseous chemical weapons, widespread use of the machine gun, aerial bombardment via zepplin, the dreadnought battleship etc. it would be daft to argue otherwise.
And yes of course tactics had to adapt and innovate throughout the war, quite true. Initially though, you can hardly say that the mighty british empire was tactically and technically equipped to deal with an equally well equipped foe such as imperial germany at the time. Yes, quite true, trains and canls were well in use, a sweeping statment on my part. However, under constant artillery bombardment these becamse useless when the surrounding terrain was turned to a wet muddy pulp by incessant shelling.

and yea sorry my bad, the nazis never were fully mechanized. knew this already i think i just got a bit carried away and made a genrealization.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by TheSilentProtagonist]

No worries mate, didn't mean to go for you. Probably rushed my second answer as I was annoyed at losing the first - damned pixies!

Just WW1 is a pet subject of mine and I think the technical efforts, self-examination and consequent adaptation of tactics of the UK and the Empire are often forgotten in the myths of guys stuck in trenches for months on end, lions led by donkeys, remote generals etc etc etc.

As you say we were no match for the Germans in '14 but we were the only army to keep fighting them for 4 years and in the end we beat them hands-down. The 100 day acampaign was a major feat of arms - An achievement we should be more proud of than we are nowadays.

The blitzkrieg is ineffective and here is why.

All 3 times it has been used effectively in warfare it met initial success of gaining ground, but then became bogged down and ineffective when surrounded and it's movement is nullified.

1st time - WW2 Nazi Germany
2nd time - Desert Storm United States
3rd time - Iraqi Freedom United States

I should say in example #2, it did succeed in achieving objectives, because they were not trying to overthrow the Iraqi regime at that time. So it worked for its purpose then, but in a completely open war (see example #3, fought 10yrs later) it becomes a limited 'shooting gallery' after its initial gains in territory.

Think about it. How many guys can fit in 1 regular, US Abrams tank? 4? 5? Ok.
Now would you prefer 5 guys inside 1 tank with 1 cannon on it, or 5 guys outside 1 tank completely surrounding it with anti-tank rockets?

Edit: Not to say it sucks, or that its only been used 3 times, im just citing those 3 times. It works .. but as always, you should "know thy enemy" before using it when its not going to work.

One thing.. when a flammable liquid is spread over a manned tank and ignited, doesn't the fire heat the inside of the tank to the point of the crewmen needing to evacuate? I recall seeing some tank(s) disabled like this with simple excess throwing of molotov cocktails at it. Some peacekeepers somewhere.. remember seeing 'em jump out of the top of the tank on fire.

[edit on 10/17/2006 by runetang]