Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

  1. #1
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Good day,

    Following my other two articles discussing Defence in Depth and Deep Operation, I have moved onto writing this one on the famous Blitzkrieg offensive strategy. Like Deep Operation, I have kept this to a fairly short 1.4k words, to avoid the tl;dr syndrome that I fear plagued my Defence in Depth article. Without further delay:

    Blitzkrieg, meaning "lightning war", rose to prominance during the German offensive into France during the Second World War. Contrary to popular belief, the innovation was not purely German in origin: examples of Blitzkrieg-esque warfare predate the onset of Fall Gelb.

    During the First World War, Allied Forces fighting in the Battle of Megiddo utilised cavalry penetration and ariel attacks on enemy centres of supply and communication in order to bring about the collapse of the enemy frontline. This went on to be one of the main pillars of Blitzkrieg warfare: to attack and destroy enemy command, communication and supply in order to paralyse the enemy frontline, enabling subsequent collapse or destruction.

    Fundamental to achieving the conditions allowing for an attack on the enemy rear-area is the concept of "Schwerpunkt", which calls for concentrating maximum power on a small segment of the enemy line to enable a breakthrough to occur. This calls upon an armoured assault directly upon the enemy line, heavily supported by considerable artillery fire and tactical air attacks, as well as motorised infantry.

    A breach having been established, formations of fast armour and motorised infantry are rushed through, whilst dismounted infantry inhabit the breach in order to keep it open. These armoured formations are then directed straight toward the enemy rear area, smashing through or bypassing any organised enemy resistance, aiming to locate and destroy enemy headquarters, supply dumps and communication centres. A successful assault in this manner can cut off the enemy frontline units from their commanders and resupply, leaving them without orders, hope of relief or fresh supplies.

    While all this is happening, more and more units pour through the breach in the enemy line, which is unlikely to be closed as a result of enemy command and control being in a state of chaos. These units fan out, widening and securing the breach, as well as encircling adjacent enemy positions or following the fast armoured formations into the enemy rear area.

    Within a few days, the successful blitzkrieg assault will have penetrated deep into enemy territory, siezing vast quantities of supplies as well as destroying or driving back enemy headquarters and reserve forces. Frontline units will have been entirely encircled and in the process of being destroyed. Any secondary or tertiary defensive lines-to-be (such as river lines or bridgeheads) will have been overrun, removing the possibility of falling back in good order to a new defensive line for the enemy.

    The competant commander would capitalise on this, contuing his lightning advance against the enemy and encircling or destroying pockets of resistance. The momentum must be maintained to minimise the possibility that the enemy will stabilise the situation and reform his frontline.

    Such a calamity would, for your enemy, spell certain defeat: his combat units are surrounded, his reserve forces are surrounded or retreating in chaos, his command and control hierarchy is in a state of total collapse, and much of his supplies and communication network with the battle zone lie in enemy hands. In short: all co-ordinated resistance has been overcome.


    * * *
    The Blitzkrieg is not, however, to be regarded as an unbeatable strategy: when used against the Allies in the Battle of France, it was a stunning success, because, not only was it an innovative strategy, hut it achieved from the onset it's most important objective: surprise and shock.

    Indeed today there exists an entire new doctrine titled "Defence in Depth" which was developed speficially to counter the Blitzkrieg and which relies on multiple layers of defensive positions in order to render an Armoured breakthrough on the frontline a much less serious occurance and ensures the rear area is protected at all times from a Blitzkrieg-style attack.

    During the Battle of France, French and British armoured units did succeed in pushing into the rear of the Blitzkrieging formations, posing a very real threat that they themselves would be cut off and the "cutting edge" of the blitzkrieg shattered. This attack was, fortunately for the Germans, repulsed and the blitzkrieg stormed on. This does, however, highlight the most important aspect of countering a Blitzkrieg: cutting off or blunting the leading edge.

    The opening stages of an enemy attempting to enact a blitzkrieg are quite obvious: a very small section of the friendly frontline comes under heavy assault from massed armoured units supported by massed artillery and aircraft attack. From the very second this report comes through, fast and decisive action must be taken to survive the next few days.

    Nearby reserve units must be flung into action: if they can arrive before the breach they can assist in keeping it closed until further friendly forces can be mobilised to assist the frontline. If they fail to arrive before the breach is made, they will atleast delay the armoured thrust into the friendly rear area, buying valuable time for rear-area units to prepare themselves.

    Following a successful penetration of the enemy into the friendly rear area, two things must be ensured: the penetration itself is kept as narrow as possible, and ones rear-area units must immediately be deployed into all-round-defence (or "hedgehog") formation.

    Holding the edges of the penetration is vital: the narrower the gap, the easier it is for friendly artillery to concentrate their fire upon it. Friendly artillery must be devoted, as much as feasible, to constant shelling of the breach. The enemy must move a considerable amount of men and material through a relatively small breach, bringing such a breach under heavy and sustained artillery fire will cause huge losses in lives, armour and supplies on the enemy side, robbing the blitzkrieg of momentum as lack of supplies and reinforcements take their toll on the leading edge.

    The "hedgehog" tactic is of equal importance: reserve combat troops must form these hedgehogs swiftly, and HQs, supplies and communications must be relocated to inside these formations. This enables friendly reserves to hold their position and keep fighting: as they cannot be outflanked and their command and supplies are all protected from being overrun by the enemy.

    As your enemy passes by more and more hedgehogs (as is the doctrine: a blitzkrieg bypasses any enemies it cannot crush, leaving them to be surrounded by following units), more and more of their soldiers must be devoted to encircling them. These hedgehogs, heavily fortified and well armed and supplied with anti-tank and anti-aircraft equipment, will prove extremely difficult to breach and can continue fighting for a long time.

    Utilising these two methods, the Blitzkrieg is effectively defeated: friendly reserves, supplies, command and communications all remain intact and entrenched within heavily fortified hedgehog formations, whilst enemy forces are all tied down containing the hedgehogs and taking horrendous losses from funneling vast quantities of equipment through the heavily-shelled initial penetration.

    From this point, counter-attacks by friendly armoured reserves can begin in earnest: first to locate and destroy the, by now severely blunted and under-supplied, cutting edge of the blitzkrieg. Following the ceassation of the enemy advance by virtue of your own armour, one can proceed to "liberate" the hedgehogs. The enemy will have few reserves of his own to utilise, as they will all be tied down containing the hedgehogs, and as such friendly forces can attack each siege one at a time, freeing the hedgehog and destroying enemy forces.

    This dismantling in detail of the enemy invasion force is the final stage of turning back the Blitzkrieg: it has been halted and now the exposed and immobile line-infantry units of the enemy are vulnerable to attacks from armoured reserve units, liberated hedgehog forces, or from within the hedgehog they are currently containing. It is then merely a matter of time before the hedgehogs are all liberated and the enemy advance has been comprehensively defeated with heavy losses in men and material and, most importantly, a large segment of their motorised and fast armour forces.

    To conclude, the Blitzkrieg itself is a deadly and irreversable assault on an enemy if they are caught unprepared for it and do not react quickly and decisively, though it is also a serious risking of your own forces in the hopes that the enemy will be unable to react to and contain your exposed forces. It is important today to realise that the strategy itself is somewhat outdated: Defence in Depth has become a standard pattern amongst most militaries in their deployment of forces, a deployment which is naturally suited to absorb a Blitzkrieg style attack.

    Edit: At request, I've tried to hunt down some of the sites I read prior to writing this article. Naturally my memory isn't perfect and at the time it was largely random reading rather than dedicated reseach, but here's a few sites that offer quality information: here, here, and here are sites that look familiar and offer some decent text on the subject.
    Last edited by Poach; September 19, 2010 at 04:16 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    another great article

    when defending, don't most forces keep their armour unengaged to repel such attacks? There's nothing better to country an extremely concetrated attack from neemy artillery, armour and aircraft than with your own artillery, armour and aircraft.

  3. #3
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Indeed, modern thinking does call for armour (supported by motorised or mechanised infantry ofcourse) to be kept, in part anyway, as a reserve force to react in strength to any situations.

    Even during offensives, reserves are usually retained to react to anything that comes up: local enemy counter-attacks, for example.

  4. #4
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    No offense to you or anything, this is indeed a well written and well researched article (although I would have said the Battle of Amiens (1918) would have been a good example for the First World War), but it did remind me why I always found military history on tactics so indredibly dull. But never mind, each to his own as they say eh? You certainly deserve some rep for your hard work.
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  5. #5
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    I considered Amiens, but armour was used largely to support the infantry, and the cavalry/air actions during the battle were more aimed at preventing the Germans from rallying rather than seeking and destroying German supplies, command and control. In fairness though, their actions did cause the German command to fall into chaos, though I don't think that was the intended objective.

  6. #6
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    What about the Whippet tanks which broke through and reeked havoc behind enemy lines? One machine gunned the German HQ whilst the commanders were eating lunch xD
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  7. #7
    Heinz Guderian's Avatar *takes off trousers
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    16,504

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Excellent article Poach. You deserve your rep.

    Quote Originally Posted by René Artois View Post
    What about the Whippet tanks which broke through and reeked havoc behind enemy lines? One machine gunned the German HQ whilst the commanders were eating lunch xD
    moar information.




  8. #8
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    A good article, but nevertheless I have to point out some questionable views as usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poach View Post
    To conclude, the Blitzkrieg itself is a deadly and irreversable assault on an enemy if they are caught unprepared for it and do not react quickly and decisively, though it is also a serious risking of your own forces in the hopes that the enemy will be unable to react to and contain your exposed forces. It is important today to realise that the strategy itself is somewhat outdated: Defence in Depth has become a standard pattern amongst most militaries in their deployment of forces, a deployment which is naturally suited to absorb a Blitzkrieg style attack.
    1. Defence in Depth, however, has a chief weakness - you cannot fortify every front unless you have that much resource and manpower to spare. Unless like Soviet during Kursk, which the Russian knew German was coming that direction and fortify the region heavily before battle, there is no way to predict what direction enemy is going to launch its operation.

    2. The modern military strategy favor more about mobile defence, largely because the small size of modern military result units cannot cover every front. It means there left a lot of open space on the lines of both sides to launch offensive operations, and defenders have to rely mobile elements to stop attacker when an attack is coming.

    It is the result of military budget cut, unfortunately.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  9. #9

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    A good article, but nevertheless I have to point out some questionable views as usual.



    1. Defence in Depth, however, has a chief weakness - you cannot fortify every front unless you have that much resource and manpower to spare. Unless like Soviet during Kursk, which the Russian knew German was coming that direction and fortify the region heavily before battle, there is no way to predict what direction enemy is going to launch its operation.

    2. The modern military strategy favor more about mobile defence, largely because the small size of modern military result units cannot cover every front. It means there left a lot of open space on the lines of both sides to launch offensive operations, and defenders have to rely mobile elements to stop attacker when an attack is coming.

    It is the result of military budget cut, unfortunately.
    1. Defence in depth isn't used unless you have sufficient manpower.

    2. Yes nearly all the time it's just mobile reserves ready to react, so what?

  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    1. Defence in depth isn't used unless you have sufficient manpower.
    That actually not true, because there are times when fortification built in deepth that were used as only defensive points for mobile reserve.

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    2. Yes nearly all the time it's just mobile reserves ready to react, so what?
    It is overgeneralize when talk about "mobile reserves" today. Mobile reserves, sure, but mobile reserve in local regions have different task than mobile reserve that in HQ. Overall, the small size of modern units generally means less front can be covered in same time, which means mobile reserve has to rush each front to deal critical spots. Further more, such mobile reserve would have only same terrain familiarity as attackers, which reduce the advantage of defenders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  11. #11

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    The counter-response to the Blitzkrieg, in at least the early forms, in the pak-front.

  12. #12
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Blitzkrieg: Implementation and Countermeasure

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    That actually not true, because there are times when fortification built in deepth that were used as only defensive points for mobile reserve.
    Which totally disarms your original statement that you need the manpower to cover your entire front in order for Defence in Depth to be successful, which in itself was a silly claim anyway.


    It is overgeneralize when talk about "mobile reserves" today. Mobile reserves, sure, but mobile reserve in local regions have different task than mobile reserve that in HQ. Overall, the small size of modern units generally means less front can be covered in same time, which means mobile reserve has to rush each front to deal critical spots. Further more, such mobile reserve would have only same terrain familiarity as attackers, which reduce the advantage of defenders.
    Your point? Mobile reserves (eg QRFs) are used even today to rush into hotspots to deal with any problems. In Afghanistan they're either mot/mecanised infantry or moved in using chinooks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •