BlitzKreig: Everything

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
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]


in WWII, Germany lost because there was no focused target, hitler made three objectives instead of 1 or 2, the objectives were Stalingrad, lenningrad, and Moscow, but he didn't dedicate enough to each, the campaign was aimed at two targets lenningrad and Moscow, and would've succeeded if hitler didn't divide his armies further. #2 and #3 wars you mentioned have worked, Blitzkreig is a form of mechanized warfare and all that stuff, it's meant to ain a quick win in a war not a win against insurgency which was the case in #3, #2 succeeded. strategic planning was crucial in WWII, and especially in russia the German armies strategies and supplies were messed up. so no i would disagree wtih you, because Blitzkreig does work.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
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

[edit on 10/17/2006 by runetang]


Err..

#1 - are you aware of the attack on the UK/French forces in the west? I'd say that was pretty effective. Barbarossa failed for the reasons stated and poor logistics but the initial blitzkrieg attack was extremely effective and only stopped with the most desperate methods.

#'s 2&3 I think you'll find those were allied attacks and again they worked perfectly. The subsequent issues that arose in Iraq were again nothing to do with blitzkrieg.

'All 3 times....' - are you sure you're qualified to be making such sweeping statements? Ever heard of the Normandy campaign?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
the use itself is effective.
the policies and usage AFTER is whats flawed.
blitzkreig will always win.
If you amount a massive armoured force, and drive them in unison

nothing will stop it, accept a larger blitzkreig counteracting it



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Ok, a few points...

1. It is BLITZKRIEG, not "Blitzkreig".

2. The basic essence of the Blitzkrieg tactic is not "speed" itself, but mobility in all aspects. Blitzkrieg cannot be correctly evaluated without considering directly what it is aimed to avoid: a rigid front, the immobile endurance war of WW1 fashion. This mobility is achieved by pinpointing enemy defenses with considerable force, but then using mobile units to target specifically the weak points in the enemy defenses, break through, wrap up. And here´s the danger: should the enemy be able to prevent being enclosed, and instead close his own lines again, the breakthrough units are cut off from the main body of the attacking force.

The mobility of the involved units is not only achieved by the mechanization, but precisely because these units were used at weak defense points giving them room to maneuver, by the widespread use of radio communication, and also a strong flexibility in the command structure. And here lies the true strength of the german forces: The "Auftragstaktik", or mission-type tactic, which gives even low commanding officers considerable freedoms in achieving their goals, and enables them to quickly react on unforeseen or changeing circumstances.

In contrast to this is the "Command and control" variant that angloamerican and Russian forces practise to this day. The "Auftragstaktik was a german concept that began emerging towards the end of the 19th century, but it requires a profoundly professional and educated officer corps ... so it was perfect for Germany, since they turned the 100.000 soldiers they were allowed by the Versailles treaty into exactly that: a specialized commanding corps. Basically all it needed in addition to have an army was some conscripted manpower.

3. "Shock and Awe" has NOTHING in common with the principles of Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg is aimed at defeating the enemy by local superiority- with Shock and Awe, the assumption that the enemy is already defeated in his inferiority is a PREREQUISITE to even start. It does not involve tactical flexibility, because all the set goals HAVE to be achieved to ensure the utter destruction, and to achieve the necessary psychological effect on the enemy - and all that according to a rigid masterplan. Basically that "tactic" means to continue kicking the opponent in the kidneys while he is already knocked out just to make sure he´ll neve stand up again.

[edit on 17/10/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
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.


Sorry, but you´re wrong. The German defensive war was characterised in that it was precisely NOT fought in a Blitzkrieg fashion anymore. One big reason for this was the lack in weaponry, resources and manpower. Another reason was Hitlers paranoia and micromanagement that slowly eliminated the tactical freedom necessary to even begin with. The Battle in the Ardennes again is an example where it was employed, but ultimately failed because of the lacking commitment.

Your two Iraq war examples are not valid either. It is not the failure of the Blitzkrieg TACTIC that is what not the STRATEGIC goal to overthrow Hussein. And it is also not the tactics´failure when people are dying today in Iraq while performing POLICE tasks. The open war in Iraq is over, and with it the possiblity to use the Blitz. You´re mixing up some very different situations.


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?


I´d prefer the 20 guys in 4 tanks against 20 guys with AT rockets, because is exactly how tanks should be used - in teams, not one tank alone in the open. But again, no "Blitzkrieg" to be found here.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
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



The Blitzkrieg is not ineffective and has been used numerous times with success. It is not a way of total war as occupation of newly gained territory basically takes you from offense to defence. As an offensive tactic the use of the indirect approach along with a combined arms attack is one of the most effective options out there. Unless you are able and willing to use smash mouth direct assaults and take massive casualties, the indirect approach is the best use of your manpower.

Is the Blitz the only way to wage war, no. Is it an effective way to wage war in many situations, yes. You can look at most of the Israeli-Arab wars and see the effectiveness of the tactic. You can have a smaller force but multiply it's effect by use of such tactics.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the use itself is effective.
the policies and usage AFTER is whats flawed.
blitzkreig will always win.
If you amount a massive armoured force, and drive them in unison

nothing will stop it, accept a larger blitzkreig counteracting it


Not true. While effective the blitz can be defeated by layered defences and well placed reserves. Look at the battle of Kursk and see what happens when a blitz hits a defender prepared for such an assault. It runs out of steam and is left exposed to such an extent that the hunter becomes the prey.

Every move has a counter, the trick is knowing what the first move really is.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
[edit on 10/18/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Hitler was the perhaps one of the worst strategic military leaders in history. Good tactician and motivator, lousy planner. His generals and admirals told him to concentrate on Great Britain but he was paranoid about the very poorly organized and equipped Soviet forces. If the Nazi's had concentrated on forcing a peace agreement with the Brits instead of attacking the Russians, all of Europe from France to Turkey would still be speaking German as the language. His other huge strategic blunder was allying himself with the Japanese. After Pearl Harbor, he was basically forced to declare war on the USA which really spelled the doom of the 3rd Reich because there was no way they could outproduce the USA's manufacturing capacity. The USA produced more tanks in a month than Nazi Germany produced in the entire war. He also screwed up by trying to turn the most advanced fighter in the world, the ME-262 into a bomber to attack London. He could have turned the skies over Europe into a killing field for the -262 equipped Luftwaffe in late 1943 instead of barely being able to field them in 1944-45. BlitzKreig was good tactics but Hitler didn't have the logistics to support it to its conclusion.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I've heard some argue that blitzkreig was what ultimately did in the nazis in WWII. It was based on very mobile, extremely rapid forces, fighting quickly. Because of the focus on this strategy, the nazis didn't stockpile enough resources for a sustained long term war, and pettered out (of course, not entirely without help from the allies).



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I wrote a paper for my Mongol History class about how modern war doctrine(ie. Air-Land Battle, Blitzkrieg ect.)were all brought about by study of Mongol Doctrine and Tactics. They were the first ones to truely use a type of "Blitzkrieg" doctrine in battle. My main source was an article published in a military journal entitled. "The Mongols and the 13th Century Air-Land Battle." Very interesting article, spoke of Hitler and Himmlers fascination with Mongol tactics and strategy, and how the US and Coalition used the Mongol invasion of Persia to plan their invasion of Iraq. If you want to understand Blitzkrieg doctrine as well as other cold war era doctrines read the actual texts that describe how brilliant the Mongol commanders were in battle, they were simply amazing and planning and waging war.

[edit on 10/18/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe used surprise, careful planning strategy, tactics and superiorly modern weaponry to strike at their targets which not only devestated them physically but psychologically as well. Air power and air superiority was a key factor employed for the 1st time in warfare as an integral part of a battle plan. Simultaneous attacks and successive thrusts were designed to not only punish but to alienate enemy forces from other units which presented a hopless and over run image into the enemy's minds.

It goes back to train like you fight- fight like your train. Guderian developed his concepts in concert with the Luftwaffe's power. Everybody else was still training like it was WW I and they'd all be sitting on their assses in some trench in the next war. Germany's weapons and equipment were superior to anything they met on the 1939-41 battlefields. Even if there argueable were some fair French armor their military leaders simply weren't up to the task. There were no combat aircraft superior and only a scant few half way on par with the Luftwaffe's quality and numerical strength.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
I wrote a paper for my Mongol History class about how modern war doctrine(ie. Air-Land Battle, Blitzkrieg ect.)were all brought about by study of Mongol Doctrine and Tactics.


Any study of Temüjin and his tactics are a great start to anyone wanting to learn about strategy and tactics. His grasp and use of both were perhaps unequalled in any single general. Alexander the Great is another good case study for those wishing to know more.

Most people think of the Mongols as brutes and savages when they were a very skilled and disciplined force. They used the "image" of themselves to instill fear in their foes long before psychological warfare was even invented. As I said, great read if you are into that kind of thing.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Hitler was the perhaps one of the worst strategic military leaders in history. Good tactician and motivator, lousy planner. His generals and admirals told him to concentrate on Great Britain but he was paranoid about the very poorly organized and equipped Soviet forces. If the Nazi's had concentrated on forcing a peace agreement with the Brits instead of attacking the Russians, all of Europe from France to Turkey would still be speaking German as the language. His other huge strategic blunder was allying himself with the Japanese. After Pearl Harbor, he was basically forced to declare war on the USA which really spelled the doom of the 3rd Reich because there was no way they could outproduce the USA's manufacturing capacity. The USA produced more tanks in a month than Nazi Germany produced in the entire war. He also screwed up by trying to turn the most advanced fighter in the world, the ME-262 into a bomber to attack London. He could have turned the skies over Europe into a killing field for the -262 equipped Luftwaffe in late 1943 instead of barely being able to field them in 1944-45. BlitzKreig was good tactics but Hitler didn't have the logistics to support it to its conclusion.


Actually, hitler was pleased that the US was invovled.
He stated it that he was happy because it forced them to come and fight him on HIS territory.


I agree hitler took on too many tasks at once, but the blitzkreig paved the way for victory.
After setting up shop, he had ample time to setup prepare and produce....
he was simply over powered by 3 superpower countries....
German Europe V Russia, England and the USA
his allies were rmeaningless, because the japs and italians wernet fighting the americans in normandy.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
i don't think hitler was happy, i once read that he reportedly said after his declaration of war against the US, that this is the end of the reich or something like that, but nevertheless, he did take on too many fronts at once, there was N Africa, russia, and one of the biggest mistakes was that he did not dispose of the UK, if the UK has been dealt with and captured, then the US would not have even dared attack , due to the fact that it would be so hard to drive any sufficient reosurces across the ocean, and there aren't as many islands in teh atlantic as in the Pacific, so they couldn't have island "hopped" so strategic mistakes were all over teh place with hitler and that's what brought down the reich....



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Its the attack on russia that signed the death warrant for the nazis, but, at the same time, its practically immpossible for the nazis to not fight the soviets.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Shock and Awe has similarities to Blitzkrieg but it's different in that it attempts to influence a wider spectrum of categories.


The Blitzkrieg wasn't used against third world countries, as was Shock and Awe, hardly comparable. Saddam had a disloyal, weak and underequipped force...German tactics weren't applied against such inferior enemies...



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its the attack on russia that signed the death warrant for the nazis, but, at the same time, its practically immpossible for the nazis to not fight the soviets.

Agreed, yet that attack could have waited...at the time of the attack the Soviets had barely any defenses, and if they hadn't been attacked they wouldn't have received help from the allies, thus slowing their war machine a couple of years...Hitler was simply a moron, and against advice attacked...

He had already a air and sea front with the UK, and North of Africa...but well...his idiotic decisions saved the world



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

The Blitzkrieg wasn't used against third world countries, as was Shock and Awe, hardly comparable.


Whatever, I never compared Shock and Awe to Blitzkrieg, while no doubt it was based on it it's not the same thing. Also, Shock and Awe is a military concept, you can argue about it's effectiveness against whomever but I fail to see why it cannot be compared to another military concept and tactic.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
German tactics weren't applied against such inferior enemies...


Inferior to us, yes, but inferior in general is relative, also those Poles riding horses against German tanks and mechanized infantry sure were comparable adversaries.


[edit on 19-10-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
the polish military was actually a large and rather powerful, and the world was shoked when they fell within a week or so...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join