Was blitzkrieg really that revolutionary?

[webmill]

Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk

In the days of the Mongols ...

Ahead of their path someone would come yelling, "The Mongols are coming!"





The Mongols didn't have this problem. ...
the Germans "reinvented" the Blitzkrieg in a modern form, from tried and true methods and principles demonstrated by the invincible Mongols in the distant past...

:

Hello Pirate-Drak:

....oh,really? Concerning the conclusion in the bottom line of the above quote.
I don't know why you quoted me, but sometimes that compells a response;


The German Blitzkrieg of WWII is a much greater and profound differentiate in spite of any recon speed-like comparisons to the flash flood Mongol invasions that could not hold territory. And therefore the Mongol invasion history is sketchy at best, to say the least.

I suppose if the Mongols had walkie-talkie hand held radio phones; now that would be impressive.

The Russians in WWII used calavry divisions in team with tank units in their get past the German front lines OMG groups during winter to disrupt German rear areas; The Germans did not.

Glad you are joining the discussion on Blitzkreig; note this Blitzkreig discussion is not in the WWII category, but in Pre-WWII 1919 to 1939 , so I assume any analogy to the past is what can be done--even one about the Mongols that strains to the breaking point

Cheers,

webmill

[MAGNA]

I can understand the points made regarding the Mongols. They are probably one of the closer comparisons that can be made as they also used a good flag system for communication as well. They were a fully mobile army where others of the time were not. They had encircling and deception techniques which surpassed those of their adversaries.

This does go further towards answering the original question in this thread.

And no, I have not been drinking at all.

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by webmill

I don't know why you quoted me, but sometimes that compells a response;I have to ask you what alcoholic beverage you might be consuming at the time of this post.

That will be enough of that

This comment is close enough to warrant mention that personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated on this site.

Consider this a warning webmill.

[TRDG]

Interesting thoughts here from many, it may help sort this out a bit better, I did'nt even think this was a "pre-WW II topic, but I think we can take some thoughts from the past as well as the present WW II time period, if that is O.K. with everyone. I have a couple more nights of work, then I will try to list the components talked about so far, and maybe start to explore the first one, if it seems feasable to everyone here.


Cheers, f.s., Are ya still "truckin" around the states still?

[webmill]

I will remove my comment in my post... DELETED BY MODERATOR
.. . DELETED BY MODERATOR...

[webmill]

Bringing up the relationship of Cavalry and Blitzkreig, however, is a WWII historical topic. Here is an aspect that has consistancy to WWI and WWIs Cavalry use in the Offense (and defensive screening) and going back to the American Civil War which has be regarded in many respects to be the first modern War. Namely the Telegraph in the Civil war now technically improved to the radio in WWII.

However, in Barbarossa in June 1941, the Germans did deploy their 1st Cavalry Korps; Their role, I beleive, was a more swift than marching infantry followup troops to the Panzer Breakthroughs

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by webmill

I will remove the comment in my post about...

And I have removed additional such comments from this post.

webmill, you are on thin ice. I suggest you reconsider your tactics here before this situation escalates any further.

[webmill]

Reply to Cyberia;

I have given the poster of post #50 an answer in webmill post #51 and webmill post #55 concerning his issue with the Mongols.--since he took it upon himself to use my quote to begin with.

When is this poster going to respond to the webmill answers given; and that also brings these posts back on topic!



Sincerely,
Webmill

[Pirate-Drakk]

Originally Posted by webmill

I have given the poster of post #50 an answer in webmill post #51 and webmill post #55 concenring his issue with the Mongols.--since he took it upon himself to use my quote to beign with.

When is this poster going to respond to the webmill answers given; and that also brings these posts back on topic!

Sincerely,
Webmill

Webmill, you type a lot of words but say little...and try to remember we are in a civil discussion for all of us to learn from each other. Even if you disagree with another posters point of view, you might still learn something from their opinions. When you disagree, it's useful to counter specific points of the other argument or thesis with facts and data. Not accusations of drunkenness, no matter how true or not.

Originally Posted by webmill

4. firepower superiority in the important areas of engagement.

Sometimes I forget that what is completely obvious to me after decades of intense study, is not always well established concept in the minds of others.

The #4 statement above is not specific to the Blitzkrieg at all. It is a fundamental concept of war which applies to trench warfare, naval warfare and any other possible warfare.

The point is that the Blitzkrieg allows one to achieve this objective in a fast paced dynamic situation where the exploitation of a breakthrough is in progress. My point is that the Mongols figured this out and applied the Blitzkrieg tactics long before the Germans.

While this may be a WWII forum, it is impossible to fully understand WWII without a complete grasp of military history and it's evolution through the ages. The fundamentals of tactics and strategy in particular have changed little in the past 2000 years. Just ask Sun Tzu and Sun Ping. The only thing that has changed is the equipment and technology. Adapting methods of using the available technology to achieve objectives as stated in comment #4 is what has changed.

Therefore, the only conceptual difference between the Mongols and the German Blitzkrieg was the equipment.

Note that once again I am specifically addressing the question posed by FreightShaker: "Was blitzkrieg really that revolutionary?"

I don't think the Blitzkrieg is a new concept at all. Just a modern rehash of an old idea. Do you really think I'm wrong? Then attempt to present a valid counter argument and I will thrash it to the hairy end of the nub. Unless of course you are correct, in which case I will change my point of view.

Cheers!

[webmill]

Originally Posted by Pirate-Drakk

The #4 statement above is not specific to the Blitzkrieg at all. It is a fundamental concept of war which applies to trench warfare, naval warfare and any other possible warfare.

The point is that the Blitzkrieg allows one to achieve this objective in a fast paced dynamic situation where the exploitation of a breakthrough is in progress. My point is that the Mongols figured this out and applied the Blitzkrieg tactics long before the Germans.

While this may be a WWII forum, it is impossible to fully understand WWII without a complete grasp of military history and it's evolution through the ages. The fundamentals of tactics and strategy in particular have changed little in the past 2000 years. Just ask Sun Tzu and Sun Ping. The only thing that has changed is the equipment and technology. Adapting methods of using the available technology to achieve objectives as stated in comment #4 is what has changed.

Therefore, the only conceptual difference between the Mongols and the German Blitzkrieg was the equipment.

Note that once again I am specifically addressing the question posed by FreightShaker: "Was blitzkrieg really that revolutionary?"

I don't think the Blitzkrieg is a new concept at all. Just a modern rehash of an old idea. Do you really think I'm wrong? Then attempt to present a valid counter argument and I will thrash it to the hairy end of the nub. Unless of course you are correct, in which case I will change my point of view.

Cheers!

I now see where you are connecting my quote from post #46 to your contention about the Mongols.

The question I would now have, since the Mongols did not use gunpowder or explosives, expect possibly in the last stages of their military career they possessed musket pistols or musket type rifles but again the Mongols did not make these guns,certainly not factory and mass produced, or invent the specific effective ammunition for the guns;

; thus, it should be, in my assessment- too difficult to concentrate Mongols for a firepower advantage of the gunpowder type against the Europeans, for any kind of Mongol victory that counts for anything--

but the Mongols were really pre pistol and rifle ;