The Kaiser's armies in WW1 developed other doctrines, most notably Falkenhayn's horrific attritional policies (eg Falkehayns killing fields at Verdun) to deal with this reality. However classic manouevre with flexible well led forces lead to victory in the East, and thetactical solutions developed there nearly led to some kind of victory in the West (the French at least went to the brink with Michael).
Yes but in with the changes from Gelb he was backing a subordinate's initiative. The rot set in with Typhoon, generals asking to retreat smacked of the defeats in 1918 and the "stab in the back" which for ideological reasons Hitler couldn't swallow. Even with Barbarossa he gave some flexibiliuty of approach such as the huge switch of panzers to encircle Kiev: this was classic manouevre again, dynamic and opportunistic, although some feel it was fatal to Barbarossa (not me though and IIRC from an earlier thread you arrived at a similar conclusion).
The post-Kursk environment was the result of the Uranus success, which was a textbook deep operation. It is also as you say theuy matched doctrine to available strengths. Human wave was effective for the Chinese in Korea, upo to apoint (the point being US ap[plication of superior firepower, another effective doctrine).
Not as ambitious as Overlord of course.
That bad? I had no idea. I do recall the German's slipped out signifcant force so they were able to fight another day.
The war was ended by killing Hitler. Stalin and Eisenhower could not know this, bu in the event the symbolic prize of Berlin was the stop button on Hitlers destruction engine.
US doctrine since WW2 (or even WW1?) seems to include 1. establishing complete air and sea supremacy, 2. massive application of force. WW2 saw really excellent handling of tough allies: Ike worked with Monty and De Gaulle(!), tricky French and British Imperial interests were resolved in favour of the US (Australia was turned from the Commonwealth to a loyal US ally) or at least smoothed over until the war was won.
Bush snr in 1st Irq is another example, his masterful alliance building and window dressing (he was justified but made sure people knew it) is in contrast to the unpopular wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan (I mean if there was a justified invasion, this was it) and 2nd Iraq. Is this a return to Monroe style isolationism?
I am interested in the development of US doctrine. I believe the 19th C US army had an extremely effective anti-guerilla doctrine used against native americans as well as Mexican bandit incursions and uprisings in the Philipines.
Was this dropped in favour of mass warfare doctrines in the world wars? They were underskilled for counter-insurgency in Vietnam (although they could wipe massive numbers of Chinese in Korea) and non too flash in the recent round of conflicts.