Hello all, I recently read that the Germans' great "Blitzkrieg" strategy was not a strategy at all. Granted I read this on wikipedia and realize that this is not the best source, but it has made me curious. Is there truth to this? I have always heard that it was the blitzkrieg, a concept created by the Germans that utilized armor and air support and followed by infantry to quickly overwhelm the enemy, that allowed such quick victory in Poland and France. Was this not a strategy at all? The site stated that many historians believe that the germans just improvised as they went along. I am seeking answers from anyone that could help me, and all of us, better understand this. As I said before I am truely very curious about this. I have always thought that this was a brilliant stategy, though it didnt work out quite so well against the Soviet Union and its vast stretches of land. Yet it caught the French and English completely by suprise, I believe. Surely someone can help us all out here?? Thanks
Hi Rommel2009, could you perhaps clarify what exactly the article said or provide a link? It is not really a "strategy" as strategy is really the overall aim/command. It would be considered a "tactic" From Germany's Panzer Arm by R. L. Dindardo: "It is abundantly clear the German armor doctrine was not strongly influenced at all by the ideas of foreign thinkers, although the Germans were familiar with the ideas of Fuller, de Gaulle and, to a much lesser extent, Liddell-Hart. It is also clear that the German armor, anti-tank, and some have argued doctrine in general, was neither new nor innovative, as some have argued. Rather German armor doctrine was simply the perfection and refining of tactics they had developed during the last two years of World War I. German writers openly admitted this. After the French campaign, Clonel Count Schack wrote an article in Deutsche Wehr comparing the German offensives of March 1918 and May 1940. He stated quite clearly that what the Germans did in May of 1940 was really no different from what they did in March of 1918. The only differencfe was the assault divisions had their mobility greatly enhanced by the addition of the internal combustion engine. Likewise, anti-tank doctrine grew out of the German Army's experiences in World War I. These in turn were fitted into the German's Army's broader war-fighting doctrine, which was openly based on the ideas of Clausewitx, Moltke, Schlieffen, and Schlichting. Thus intellectually, the German Army of World War II owed much to its imperial predecessor. The unique approach to the problems of armored warfare taken by the Germans allowed them to deploy and use their armored and anti-tank units in a uniquely German manner.
Of course JagdtigerI, here is the link. I am referring to the section called "Alleged use of Blitzkrieg". It has no sources, and so this makes me wonder about authenticity, but, as I mentioned, it had me curious and I was wondering on what anyone could provide to clear it up for me and anyone else wondering. Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thanks for the above quote as well, and for correcting that it was really more of a doctrine. I have read that Blitzkrieg was kind of just a perfection of earlier doctrines but this wiki post makes it seem like they put little thought into it, if I am interpretting it correctly, which I may not be. Take a look and see what you think.
From all that I have read, my understanding is that Guderian was influenced by Fuller's idea of using armor 'enmasse' as was DeGaulle as can be seen by his attack on Rommel's left flank during the invasion of France. Blitzkrieg is strictly a German conception utilizing not only armor enmasse, but mobile infantry and artillery, along with close air support. This brought about the use of radios inside of each tank along with Luftwaffe forward air observers. Nothing like existed and is still used today, lately during the Gulf Wars. I do not see a resemblence to any previous doctrines which precedes Blitzkrieg................but I could be wrong.
Hi PzJgr, here is another quote from Germany's Panzer Arm by R. L. Dinardo: "German armor doctrine was it finally evolved was essentially an outgrowth of the Army's infiltration tactics that it had developed during World War I. Thee tactics represented a philosophical approach by the German Army intended to break the deadlock of trench warfare. They were based on the use of small groups of specially trained assault infantry using combined arm; in this case, a mix of rifles, light machine guns and smoke shells, were to penetrate the soft spots in the enemy line and then move into the enemy's rear area. Isolated and bypassed enemy strong points would then be assaulted and taken by units following up after the initial advance. These tactics had proven very effective in Russia, Romania, Italy and finally France." Within the paragraph Dinardo cites: Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Stormtroop Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918 (Westport, 1989), pp. 91-104, pp.107-170 Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Infantry Attacks (Vienna, 1979), pp. 201-276 Captain Timothy T. Lupfer, The dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in Germana Tactical Doctrine During the First World War Hi Rommel, that wiki section is somewhat confusing. Overall, I don't think it is saying that Blitzkrieg was improvised. The article claimed that Guderian at one point said that Blitzkrieg was improvised (no source), which doesn't make any sense. The Germans didn't just simply line up a bunch of soldiers on the border with France and tell them to "go." They coordinated the artillery attacks, air raids, etc., every unit had distinct objectives to be achieved at specific times. Put everyone's separate objectives together and you get and deliberate tactic: Blitzkrieg.
I think the use of improvised in this case involves the idea of improvising as you realise the actuality of the enemy deployment, etc but still meeting the requirements of your objectives and not neccessarily sticking exactly to any pre-planning. So no enormous barrage announcing your planned movement, not getting bogged down en-route to your ultimate target, in short none of the WWI tactics which had failed. "Achtung Panzer" does quote at some length many WWI actions which worked because of a similar "improv", typically from Officers commanding with some fluidity to their work, combined with applying co-operation between arms.
Thank you all for shining some light on this topic. I appreciate the help. This makes more sense now. I completely agree that the article is confusing =D Thanks guys
Hi Wotno; Blitzkreig was invented by General Allenby during the First World War. Battle of Megiddo (1918) at AllExperts Unfortunately only a few German officers came to the obvious conclusions. JeffinMNUSA
