Quote:
Originally Posted by TRDG
Yes, I see that, but still the Germans had a wider success with this concept, and did'nt many Allied nations take note of how they went about the Blitz. And then modify it to their own needs, depending on the situations??? The Germans, not so much after their first succeses, thank your lucky stars for that!!
Cheers
Tom
|
Blitzkrieg relies on a decentralized command that allows subordinate commanders great leeway in how they accomplish their missions. Most Allied nations were not prepared or willing to give lower ranked soldiers that much responsibility. Germany had been training leaders to use great initiative since the days of Fredrick the Great and many great battles, Tannenburg for one, had been won by the decision, or disobedience as in the example, of a subordinate commander.
France had a larger and more mechanized army than Germany. They also had leaders that supported mobile combined arms operations but manpower and a limp wristed government prevented it's correct use.
Britain followed too closely to Fuller's ideas of massive pure tank units operating as cavalry. Even during the desert battles in 42' they were trying to operate this way. I also feel that some prejudice might be in there that Blitzkrieg was a 'German' idea and that they couldn't copy them because of nationalism.
The US followed German operations closely and identified that they needed to produce a fast, agile tank that could exploit breakthroughs. Otherwise they were stuck in the same thinking mode as the British and many French: The idea that firepower was superior to maneuver. The US did develop a successful firepower doctrine but it would never achieve the same results as the maneuver doctrines of Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle.