Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGNA
As I posted in the WWI armour section for TRDG, Guderian spent the First World War in technical and comms work which exposed him to the possibilities of radio and fast transport (at that time trucks). When he was later exposed to the tank and other AFV's it all fell into place for him.
Kesselring also learned a lot in WWI about comms and observation since he was trained and first employed as an artillery officer. He saw the obvious advantages of first, observation balloons and then aircraft. His later work as a staff officer and then training service allowed him to help build the tactical Luftwaffe at the same time as Guderian headed the Armour Inspectorate and built the Panzerwaffe.
Thus, two new arms for Germany from the ground up with the experience behind them of two highly capable men. The Panzerwaffe and Luftwaffe as originally devised had not been seen before and were very hard to counter. They did however, have other parallels through history and were only new in the tactical sense.
|
Therefore Blitzkrieg was not
revolutionary but rather
evolutionary.
As the thread sidetrack into Mongol history demonstrates there is nothing new under the sun. Any of the supposed "inventions" have long histories.
That Germany did so well initially was only part of the equation. The Western Allies were also preparing to fight WWI all over again which made them susceptible to penetrating attacks.
Reconnaissance is eyes, whether they be from satellites or Feisler Storchs or Hussars.
Firepower is firepower, whether it be from M-109 Paladins or 105mm gun/howitzers or arrows or trebuchets.
Mobility is speed, either with helicopters or APC or horse or foot.
That is why we still study Sun Tzu and Klauswitz and that is why the American Army still trains officers
on the ground to run through the Vicksburg campaign.