Was blitzkrieg really that revolutionary?

[JohnnieB]

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.

[TRDG]

Originally Posted by JohnnieB

Yes J.B, but the use of ALL of these factors,and more in combination, at the right place and at the right time, at least at the beginning of the war did seem like something "new", "inovative" and it seemed to "work" once in a while to. At least to the Allies, or so it is said, is'nt it??

Cheers, good post John!!

Tom

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by JohnnieB

Therefore Blitzkrieg was not revolutionary but rather evolutionary.

As I described in my initial post: Blitzkrieg was the marriage of traditional Prussian doctrine of maneuver warfare married to modern technology. Of course, I believe it was all made possible by wireless .

[JohnnieB]

Originally Posted by TRDG

Yes J.B, but the use of ALL of these factors,and more in combination, at the right place and at the right time, at least at the beginning of the war did seem like something "new", "inovative" and it seemed to "work" once in a while to. At least to the Allies, or so it is said, is'nt it??

Cheers, good post John!!

Tom

Not at all. There is nothing new or innovative about using all the assets at your disposal, the best C3I you have, showing up "fustest with the mostest", "horse, foot and guns".

The Blitzkrieg was fragile, a minority of logistic-intensive units on the end of a tether followed up by a primarily horse-drawn and walking force.

Similar experiments had been conducted by the French, British and Americans. They suffered from institutional inertia, while the Reichswehr was starting nearly from scratch, a clear implementation advantage.

[TRDG]

The thing is though, why was everyone so surprised by it, were they not.........

French, British, US and Russia I think from what I have read.

Cheers, further thoughts ladies and gentlemen? Yep, another side track here, but could be fun and informative!!

Tom

[MAGNA]

Nice work JohnnieB. The point about starting from scratch compared to other countries is a very important one. Most other armed forces of the time were hamstrung by inter-service rivalry which went a long way towards holding back development. Resistance to mechanisation from the cavalry arms through to the doctrinal arguments about aircraft being able to win a war by themselves are examples of this.

Germany suffered little from this internal strife as the whole structure had to be made anew.

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by TRDG

The thing is though, why was everyone so surprised by it, were they not.........

French, British, US and Russia I think from what I have read.

Cheers, further thoughts ladies and gentlemen? Yep, another side track here, but could be fun and informative!!

Tom

Russia was developing Deep Battle at the same time as the Germans. Both doctrines are quite similar but DB is on a much larger scale. Development of DB was stopped due to most of it's supporting generals being purged, including it's founder Mikhail Tukhachevsky. After seeing the results of the Spanish Civil War and the mishap of the Russo-Finnish war, development resumed but too late to be effective by time the German's attacked. Russia had more warning than any other nation but never took heed.

Deep operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mikhail Tukhachevsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by MAGNA

Germany suffered little from this internal strife as the whole structure had to be made anew.

Using a somewhat elite and handpicked Reichswehr developed by Hans von Seeckt, whom is very underrated for his achievments.

Hans von Seeckt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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

[Freightshaker]

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.

[TRDG]

Thank you sir, nice post!!

Cheers

Tom