70 years later, Blitzkrieg still a go-to tactic

[Fade]

70 years later, Blitzkrieg still a go-to tactic
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, The Associated Press

HOUX, Belgium — Soon after nightfall on May 12, 1940, German scouts crept through wartorn countryside along the Meuse River, passing blown bridges and searching for a crossing to the western bank.

Suddenly they spotted an undamaged weir, moved quietly across the river and quickly established a bridgehead, unnoticed by French defenders nearby.

The crossing that night 70 years ago Wednesday, the pivotal moment in one of the most important battles in modern history, gave rise to the doctrine of the “lightning war” — or Blitzkrieg — which many armies have since sought to emulate and even today holds relevance for campaigns in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“Since 1940 the Blitzkrieg has been the benchmark of manoeuvr warfare,” said Lloyd Clark, senior lecturer of war studies at Britain’s Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. “The Germans brought it to a pitch of excellence, and since then everyone’s been trying to copy them.”

Article continued at http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/05/11/13903561.html

[tluassa]

From the "Military of Germany" thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lbhidE9VpU&feature=player_embedded

PS: Some historical remarks:

1. The initial strategy of combined use of Panzers / motorised troops was planned by Manstein and Guderian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein_Plan

One has to note though the the German Army only had a limited number of "fast" divisions, and contrary to the great "Blitzkrieg" myth the War was mainly fought by Infantry Divisions that had to walk or were transported by via trains.
Of the 93 front-line divisions put up against France, only ten were armoured, six motorised. The 37 Reserve Divisions, and many of the Front Divisions had at that point not completed their training. (In May 1940 only 79 divisions out of 157 in all had completed their training 14 were nevertheless send into battle, mainly in Army Group C and against the Netherlands.)
Against the USSR, the numbers of "fast" vs "slow" divisions was even less equal if I remember it correctly...

[deagle]

i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't blitzkrieg in a MOUT.

[Antey]

Well, as far as I know, Germans already used this principle (skipping the resistance points, moving fast to back) already in late years of WW I - only the infantry were moving on foot. Later only the means have changed and have been supplemented by aircraft.

Regarding to the article, author simply missed the point - blitzkrieg is not a strategy; it's overgrown tactic aimed at armies, kind of army scale ju-jitsu. It's neither strategy or doctrine for defeating countries - and it has, like any other way of doing things it's limitation. In Soviet Union blitzkrieg worked - until it was spoiled by higher command of German Army and when type of fighting changed, german army found itself (along with equipment, etc) "out of it's element" which by definition means disadvantage. (eg. "battefield airforce" which wasn't capable of strategic bombing).

Some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle

[Davidian]

i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't blitzkrieg in a MOUT.

We(Insatspluton, Livkomp, P7, Sweden) had an excercise with German Rangers, they blitzkrieg in MOUT.

Effective when considering the time they save on every building, but storming recklessly into buildings could have dire consequenses, like ****y-traps, ambushes in lobbies...etc..

imho

[cuirassier]

i amène à dire que nous mustnot oublier le courage extradinory des soldats français au cours de cette campaing en 1940 en effet

ils savaient la plus grande défaite de leur histoire, mais ils se battent dur avec le peu de
matériels dont ils disposaient. Ils ont de nombreux exemples de cette Narvik (le DLM en Belgique, la bataille de Stonne, la bataille de Abeville etc ..). Pendant 10 mai au 22 juin l'armée allemande a perdu 49.000 soldats, il est plus que leurs victimes constatées dans l'URSS au cours de juin 22 au 10 décembre 1941! Mais beaucoup de gars stupides pense que, depuis cette défaite que les soldats français sont lâche. Il est faux et c'est une insulte pour les soldats français de mort 122221

[cuirassier]

take to mean that we forget the courage mustnot extradinory French soldiers during the 1940 campaing in effect

they knew the biggest defeat in their history, but they fight hard with the limited
material they had. They have many examples of this Narvik (the DLM in Belgium, the Battle of Stone, the Battle of Abeville etc. ..). During May 10 to June 22 the German army lost 49,000 soldiers, it is more than their casualties in the USSR during June 22 to 10 December 1941! But a lot of stupid guys think that since this defeat that the French soldiers are cowardly. It is wrong and is an insult to the French soldiers of death

[Abyr]

During May 10 to June 22 the German army lost 49,000 soldiers, it is more than their casualties in the USSR during June 22 to 10 December 1941!Um, what?..

At the last day of August Nazi casualties (KiA only) already reached ~87500 men.
By the end of December 1941 173722 were killed.
http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec41.html

[Nansouty]

When, on May 16th, Churchill asked Gamelin (or Billote, his second-in-command) about the location of therter reserves, he got the following answer : "Theater reserves? We have none".
Like most spectacular and unexpected events, the causes of the French defeat in 1940 are easy to understand : a left wing dashing through Belgium to meet the German advance, with all motorized units committed, and a plethorical right wing safely waiting behind the Maginot line. Betweeen them, teh Ardennes, location of the German breakthrough, which the French HQ deemed difficult going, with its narrow roads, for motorized formations... Unfortunately, the fall of Eben Emal and Maastricht had already solved a lot of logistical troubles for the Axis. The modern forces that could have counterattacked, and nipped the German ****g, were trying to extricate themselves from Belgium, and failed in this, getting destroyed in Dunkerque.
What other reasons have been put forward, cowardice and lack of war materiel, are either untrue, or to be heavily relativised (who'd care to face even a Renault R 35 in a Panzer II?). That the cause of the defeat was not immediately recognized, and given to the French people, holds simply to the fact that it was expedient for Petain to pretend otherwise : he killed 2 birds with one stone, as he avoided his army fellow generals a trial (who still remembers one of his ministers was General Hunzinger, former head of the 2nd Army? The 2nd army was just east of Guderians breakthrough, and to be charitable, let's just say Hunzinger did not do a lot to try to close the gap...), and justified his suppression of democracy, a regime whose "softness" - symbolized by the Matignon Agreements of 1936, a legislation instituting paid holidays and 40 hours a weeek for workers- was antithetic to the sacrifices needed for the preparation of war (and once again, who remembers Petain's prime minister, Laval, was in charge at Matignon when Hitler's Army reoccupied the Rhine's left bank?*).

* reading my post, the way I worded it may be confusing : of course, at that time (1936), Petain was not the head of the state... Laval, in 1940, was an influential and seasoned MP who rallied to Petain and favorised his overturning of the Republic.

[cuirassier]

je parle de kil en action de jour il est 4760.

[cuirassier]

i speak about kill by day it is 4760.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't blitzkrieg in a MOUT.

Worked pretty well in Baghdad in 2003.

[pekka elo]

Why wouldn't modern armies use Blitzkrieg tactics. It's just one name for ideal mechanized tactics, not "ZOMG NAZI TACTICS". Its key elements are creation of a focal point, violence of action, surprise and taking advantage of momentum.

[Alfacentori]

Blitzkrieg at its most basic is overwhelming force at the chosen point of advance, rapid mobility, disruption and enemy rear areas, and close cooperation between air and ground elements. Sounds like a worthwhile tactic for officers in most armies to study and learn from.

Alfa

[JRT]

Blitzkrieg at its most basic is overwhelming force at the chosen point of advance, rapid mobility, disruption and enemy rear areas, and close cooperation between air and ground elements. Sounds like a worthwhile tactic for officers in most armies to study and learn from.

Alfa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirLand_Battle

It's all nice when you have the air elements...

[eskachig]

i wouldn't say that. i wouldn't blitzkrieg in a MOUT.Blitzkrieg is all about avoiding situation such as MOUT. Cities are exactly the kind of thing Blietzkrieg assaults bypass and isolate.