It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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]
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]
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
The Blitzkrieg wasn't used against third world countries, as was Shock and Awe, hardly comparable.
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
German tactics weren't applied against such inferior enemies...