WWII blitzkrieg discussion

[Jagdpanzer]

Were they used for actual defence

The Belgian ones? Fort Eben-Emael fell victim to a surprise attack with paragliders. Most artillery guns were disabled with hollow charges.Eben-Emael surrendered on the 11th of May. Paragliders also landed near three bridges across the Prince Albert Canal. Bridges at Vroenhoven and Veldwezelt were captured. Bridge at Kanne was demolished by the Belgians who put up heavy resistance.

[agunter999]

The fort was built in the Czechoslovakia
That is how much planning went into it

[Jagdpanzer]

The fort was built in the Czechoslovakia
That is how much planning went into it

According to my source they trained on a Czech defence line in Sudetenland and used a glass model of the fort.

[agunter999]

Oh right
I thought they made the whole fort

[cupoftea]

Eben-Emael, maybe the strongest fort in the world, fell to the hands of 80 Germans. I'm so ashamed of my countrymen

[agunter999]

Flamethrowers were poked through the windows

[Karabekian]

No offence but you should be
Mind you a little French help wouldn't go amiss

The casualties of the 1940 campaign were rather heavy. The Germans had the luck however, that Manstein was the superior strategist and managed to outsmart French leadership. Germany was not ready for war against France. They had luck, a lot of luck. Later that luck run out, badly.

Eben Emael on the other hand is no different from the thousands (millions) of other countries soldiers that surrendered. Once the fort was surprised, the guns were being destroyed by a new weapon, causing heavy casualties on gun crews, additional ammunition cooking off in the magazines etc. Quantity in men is not relevant in such a situation. The fact is, these were human beings getting blown up in a new fashion.

Austria would have been like the Baltic states, Poland etc. etc. Annihilated or surrendered with little hope of a future.

[agunter999]

Austria would have been like the Baltic states, Poland etc. etc. Annihilated or surrendered with little hope of a future.

This is actually debated
Where has that PDF on it gone
I will find it

[YuriVII]

One thing I heard about Austria Anchluss is that Italy was actually very close to going to war against Germany over it and they offered the Austrians help but was refused. What would happen if Italians got involved in Austria with the German army being so unprepared?

[Wulfburk]

One thing I heard about Austria Anchluss is that Italy was actually very close to going to war against Germany over it and they offered the Austrians help but was refused. What would happen if Italians got involved in Austria with the German army being so unprepared?

From Churchill's memoirs (which should be considered biased) i got the idea that Italy was indeed trying to secure Austria's independence, but even though they said they would support it in case of german threat, they woudnt actually do it. The german army was unprepared, but the Italian army was even more unprepared to such events, during the Anchluss Mussolini told Hitler that Italy would NOT intervene, that such thing was an impossibility.

[agunter999]

Some where on this Internet of the world there is a PDF explaining austrian capability
Germany was just as unprepared so Austria could have held out for a bit
Especially in the alps

[prvtcuster]

When are we going to deal with the myth of Blitzkrieg itself, I wonder?

There was no Blitzkrieg in strategic terms, since that was the origin of the term: a strategic doctrine fit for countries poor in supplies and raw materials defined as strategic surprise attack with the use of armor, air force and airborne troops. This was not the case with France, nor Poland.

On the operational level, what actually happened was the utilization of Schwerpunkt, the iron fist of maximum concentration at the enemy's weakest point or a version of war of maneuver.

On the tactical level we had stormtruppen tactics (straight from the later days of WWI) as in the infantry breakthrough in Sedan.

What Blitzkrieg?

[prvtcuster]

When are we going to deal with the myth of Blitzkrieg itself, I wonder?

There was no Blitzkrieg in strategic terms, since that was the origin of the term: a strategic doctrine fit for countries poor in supplies and raw materials defined as strategic surprise attack with the use of armor, air force and airborne troops. This was not the case with France, nor Poland.

On the operational level, what actually happened was the utilization of Schwerpunkt, the iron fist of maximum concentration at the enemy's weakest point or a version of war of maneuver.

On the tactical level we had stormtruppen tactics (straight from the later days of WWI) as in the infantry breakthrough in Sedan.

What Blitzkrieg?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

A massive myth about the Blitzkrieg is that it was invented by Guderian, not only is this false but Guderian didn't seem to completely understand how these tactics worked. With his over emphasis on tanks it appears that he missed the point that in fact Blitzkrieg tactics were possible because of a combined arms approach and it wasn't as simple as charging in with tanks and just trying to go as far behind the enemy as possible or straight through their formations. In fact what we call "Blitzkrieg" tactics were technically invented in WW1 by the British, with the emphasis not just on tanks but again and always being on combined arms.

[prvtcuster]

Contrary to popular myth, the polish cavalry never charged german armour. They actually charged the german infantry trying to catch up to the armour

[Cyclops]

When are we going to deal with the myth of Blitzkrieg itself, I wonder?

There was no Blitzkrieg in strategic terms, since that was the origin of the term: a strategic doctrine fit for countries poor in supplies and raw materials defined as strategic surprise attack with the use of armor, air force and airborne troops. This was not the case with France, nor Poland.

On the operational level, what actually happened was the utilization of Schwerpunkt, the iron fist of maximum concentration at the enemy's weakest point or a version of war of maneuver.

On the tactical level we had stormtruppen tactics (straight from the later days of WWI) as in the infantry breakthrough in Sedan.

What Blitzkrieg?

Look its a fair question. I'd tinker with the terminology a little, teasing out Grand Strategy designed to Win the War (policies such as Germany First or Island Hopping)as opposed to Strategy designed to win campaigns (such as Lets Amphibiously Invade or Strengthen the Right!).

Discursis

I believe there's a further distinction of Grand Tactics and Tactics but this is more useful in analysing pre Ww1 battles as it distinguishes the overall conduct of the battle from handling individual units. Grand Tactics might be "Keep a reserve, apply pressure until an opening appears and stick it in", whereas Tactics might be "Form line to fire, column to charge and square to repel cavalry". Modern battlefields give less clear distinction between battle events as operations tend to occur across wide fronts and are subject to broader operations.

Hitler seems have adopted a Strategy of Blitzkrieg (as distinct from his Grand Strategy of which he seems to have no coherent plan beyond wanting to invade the Soviets at some point) in the Wehrmacht's operations in that they struck hard and won short campaigns with starting forces before they became Materialschlachten.

At a tactical level it was the 20th century implementation of combined arms to form a schwerpunkt followed by deep operations, and is foreshadowed by some WW1 developments, as well as interwar Soviet theorists and as you suggest harking back to many manoeuvre theorists like Napoleon, Attila the Hun etc etc.

Indeed (recalling Clausewitz's dictum that warfare is the continuation of policy by other means) the operations against Austria (military and diplomatic) Czechoslovakia (chiefly diplomatic) Poland and France recall Napoleon's opportunistic (yet paradoxically decisive, once the die was cast) methods, slamming everything (propaganda, fifth columns where available and ultimately warfare) in hard and creating a thunderclap that shook opponents into surrender.

I do agree the war was not at all well planned but Hitler did build a war machine and long preached war on the Soviet Union. Indeed I believe his army planners were terrified of another war with France (I suppose WW1 suggested an Eastern war was winnable but not a Western one). So WW2 was going to start and probably be started by Hitler and he probably wanted to get at the Commies. Poland had to go, either by diplomatic bluff and WAllied cowardice, or by war.

I do think Blitzkrieg (as in the set of tactical doctrines comprising the use of schwerpunkt to create opportunities for deep operations) but also the principle that a short stunning campaign might topple the regime and secure a favourable peace) was meant to take down the Soviet Union, and I'd say it went close.

Recall Stalin seemed to go quiet for about two weeks when Barbarossa opened, he seems to have been shaken badly by events. Who knows how close he came to being offed by his own staff? Another few days maybe someone would've worked up the courage to do something. It does show why Stalin had the officer purge in 1937: Hitler only purge a few officers and while that meant he retained a large skilled officer corps, he also faced numerous assassination attempts whereas Stain seems to have had less trouble on that front.

[prvtcuster]

von Seecht used combined arms and schwerpunkt tactics to establish the blitzkrieg concept. However since it was used by the germans as their standard tactic and the germans were so successful early on, they mistakenly attributed their success to the tactic.
Blitzkrieg in reality is a myth of the germans. France defeat was more a political lack of heart. When Reynaud told Churchill, they had lost the war,Churchill, fearful that he would lose the british expeditionary, he withdrew it. By Churchill withdawling his force defeat was a self-fulfilling prophesy. Additionally the germans faced very strong French resistance after the german had split the british and French forces.
Guderian did not invent Blitzkrieg,what he did was to use armour with combined arms
The French army was not defeated, as shown by their stiff resistence after Dunkirk, more like their government showed no resolve or even support. Basically, French strategy was purely defensive as the maginot line shows and the politicians were definitely defeatist. This attitude was a reaction of the French people to the trauma of WWI

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

But that's kind of the point. Why carry on a war where no objectives are being carried out or no actual interests will be gained? France gave up because there really was no reason to continue and urged Britain to do likewise lest they incur massive deaths and a meaningless victory (kind of like what Britain got in 1945), so most wars are a lack of political heart. Really the terms were pretty lenient compared to Versailles but I fear that Benito Mussolini's opportunism and what he wanted out of France made them much harder than they should have been (still pretty lax compared to Versailles though).
Sure the French could have regrouped and made a pretty good defence but this would have been a long term investment and neither side was willing to do that, from the mentality of WW1. Hitler wanted a quick win in the West and having fulfilled his objectives with the Versailles treaty then he had no reason to keep fighting.

That was pretty much why Hitler didn't have a grand strategy, he expected to steam roll Poland from the beginning without any interference from France or Britain. Even then he never removed the possibility of giving up Poland in exchange for a Western peace deal. After the French and British joined Poland's side, he still very much wanted a quick victory followed by a peace deal. Having said that war is just achieving a political goal by other means, Hitler's goals were deeply rooted in Eastern expansion and for the West it was merely to undo the Versailles treaty (which he could have accomplished politically but after defeating France it was done militarily). So there can't really be a Grand Strategy for a war that Hitler wasn't even expecting and hence making Germany unprepared for such a war. So now that Britain did not accept any form of peace deal then he failed diplomatically (his original aim for "winning" in the West), then both countries are now going to have to invest in a long war. Had he used the U-boat strategy of Doenitz from the beginning then it was likely that Britain would have capitulated and of course there was also the defeat of the RAF. But aside from that I can't really see any actual strategy to defeat the British Empire, really the British Empire was practically an unassailable target once the blockade isn't so effective and the RAF isn't defeated then there isn't much for Germany to do.

In the long run, unless Germany could have materialized the material and resources from thin air, then Germany would ultimately lose to Britain (Germany would lose especially economically). The solution? Invade the USSR, conquer it and take their stuff in order to build up Germany economically and to get the supplies to give the knock out to Britain. But to say that the strategy of Blitzkrieg would not have won against the Soviets is completely right. Keep in mind though that it was the generals that planned Operation Barbarossa and they wrongly believed that the Blitzkrieg would utterly defeat the Soviets. It was Hitler who believed that militarily the Soviets could not be defeated in the long run and that the Germans needed to pursue other aims, namely economic aims to render the Soviet forces useless. But it was this bad beginning of Barbarossa (a pretty good bad start though ), strategically specifically, that caused the Germans to fall short of the target. Had they pursued Hitler's alternative aims rather than trying militarily annihilating the Soviet forces (with many generals suggesting the defeat of the Soviets in a decisive battle... *cough* Moscow *cough*... wtf?) then they most likely would have won, or at least come a lot closer than they really did.

Seeing successful invasions of Russia (at least as big as the Russian state is, not Muscovy or any of that mind you), it is quite obvious that no one invaded them purely militarily. It had very much to with defeating the Russian economy, hence my view that this would have been the way to get rid of Uncle Jo and the USSR.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

About Guderian though, it seems to me (just judging by some of his performance) that he didn't really understand that it was this combined arms that gave the success though, he seems to put far too much emphasis on his tanks. But that's just my two cents... well everything I've ever said is just my two cents.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

In my opinion, even if Stalin got offed by his own cronies I doubt that the Soviets would ever make peace. If he did get offed it would have been for his failure to defeat the Nazis and hence it would just be to carry on the war without Stalin. Plus it would be hard for me to see a scenario where Russia doesn't get annexed, even more reason to keep on fighting without our dear old Uncle Jo.

[prvtcuster]

When are we going to deal with the myth of Blitzkrieg itself, I wonder?

There was no Blitzkrieg in strategic terms, since that was the origin of the term: a strategic doctrine fit for countries poor in supplies and raw materials defined as strategic surprise attack with the use of armor, air force and airborne troops. This was not the case with France, nor Poland.

On the operational level, what actually happened was the utilization of Schwerpunkt, the iron fist of maximum concentration at the enemy's weakest point or a version of war of maneuver.

On the tactical level we had stormtruppen tactics (straight from the later days of WWI) as in the infantry breakthrough in Sedan.

What Blitzkrieg?

[prvtcuster]

I agree with Garbarsardar about schwerpunkt which I believed was first used by Longstreet in the American Civil War. The ultimate goal of the german tactics was to achieve schwerpunkt. The only difference was how to achieve it. In WWII the germans used combined arms and maneuver to achieve it.