Reviewing and Discussing the Blitzkrieg

[Fuchs]

Me and Theta where pretty much being bad ass mofo off-topic whores in the favourite nation thread but this is a subject that interests me alot and I certainly want to read and write some more about it.

So bring up your stories, what went well, what went wrong, which country had adequate equipment, which didn't, which country used the right tactics and which country completely screwed up.

This discussion or story telling session ( ) is supposed to be about the German invasions 1939-1940. So Western-Europe, Poland, Scandinavia and the other nations I am forgetting, forgive me.

Just qouting the first posts off-topic from me and Theta after we got lurked into this by a troll:

Hey dude, do you know these dudes named Romans, they say they are from Italy and boy they sortof went like Hitler and shit. Only for a couple of centuries with total domination of the known world.

And do you remember the Franks? Yes, the old French. They kicked arse full time. Like professionals.

Ah what am I doing baiting a troll...

Anyway, Italy + France rock. France had the best tanks of the interwar period by far beating any other nation in design. They only used the wrong tactics. Plus their hinder was politics, agressive formation lay outs where politically incorrect. Italy had bad organization, bad funds, but good soldiers. Their morale dropped because their equipment sucked. Then you surrender.

If the maginot line was not build, things would have been far diffrent during WW2.

The amount of resources spended in it would have made France his army FAR and far larger and better equipped

Maginot line ruled, tad outdated but could do it's job very well.

Politics made it worthless with the open gap of Belgium. Why the Belgians didn't co-op with them and also made a wall and why the Dutch didn't think 'Oh shit then they'll get us too' and also made one. I don't know.. Political incorrect I guess.

France probably lost, to sum up some things, because ineffective tank cannons on most tanks, short barrelled 37mm is just not doing the job. Long barreled 47mm was a huge improvement but not enough of them around. Not enough medium/heavy tanks and all tanks where deployed wrong. Ineffective Maginot Line because of politics and not a large airforce to support the ground troops.

Our fortresses where not build for WW2. We all made mistakes. First of all, The Belgian goverment gave the order to a german company to build Eben Emaul. So ye, Germany knew everything about the fortress.

If the Fortresses did their job, they would have severly slowed down the germans. If the Maginot line stretched towards Belgium, and we Belgians did the same, it would have been far difficult for the germans.

The germans where very lucky aswel. Just as we attempt to blow up the Vital bridges, they knock out our cannon. When we sended 8 Fairy battle's to destroy the bridge, the germans JUST had aircover and AA fire.

We Lower countries dint do bad though. We Belgians lacked tanks. The Dutch, while very well motivated, dint had much equipment at all. And the French army dint had good communication and Tactics.

Still, we won the war in the end.Thats all that matters

Yeah ehm, so I hope some guys hop in with this 

[THeTA0123]

Remeber! We come in peace!We wanna discuss this GENTLY! And calm!

because the first one who says stop whining or goes offtopicWILL BE LINED UP AGAINST THE WALL AND SHOT and THEN FED TO PIGS!


Discuss!

[Fuchs]

Luftwaffe.be is taking risks with discussing further behind enemy lines, oh boy 

Anyway, what you where saying back there..

Politics + funds basically ruined it. Hitler had easy playing, no politics to worry about, just invest and make producing arms your economy! The Dutch where still crawling up from the Depression but where slowly investing more into the armed forces. Way too late though! I don't know alot about the Belgian armed forces so sadly I can't say much about them. France had in general good equipment but some stuff made itself outdated, wrong cannons, troops walking in old uniforms, still the old Lebels while the MAT's should have been there etc.

Budget was tight for all of them.. Dutch where the silliest party though. 1 tank and we almost lost that one testing our own frozen Water Linie. I wonder why they never invested in proper tanks. They could have seen the advancements in it. I do know the Dutch where done with upgrading the AA systems, one of the reasons so many (in comparison) German planes where downed by Dutch ground troops.

[Archimonday]

Blitzkrieg as a strategy is not bad, but it does have mortal enemies, primarily logistics. An army can advance deep into enemy territory and cut off a group of enemy forces from the rest of its contingency, but ultimately blitzkrieg is limited by the distance you can travel before running out of supplies. Often time armies who use this strategy would have to retreat after the initial attack to shorten the supply route and improve the supply situation. This was especially true in North Africa where Rommel insisted on taking Tobruk, and stretched his supply line too thin, not to mention Germany could not ship in the amount of goods it needed to continue the desert war. 70,000 tons was more than Tripoli (possibly the largest port in North Africa at the time) could handle, not to mention a good group of German forces was preoccupied with holding the British in Greece, which in turn could have been useful reinforcements for Rommel's exhausted forces assaulting Tobruk.

The same was true in France, where German forces advanced almost to the Atlantic, but had to stop momentarily because of supply troubles. Even modern armies such as the United States Marine Core and US Army were temporarily stopped in Iraq in both middle eastern conflicts, because the Coalitions advance speed exceeded the rate at which the supply battalions could bring up fresh food and water.

A blitzkrieg is also a risky strategy, leaving the attacking force on a narrow front and deep behind enemy held territory. If an enemy army was not confused and able to make a cohesive counter attack, a lot of men sent into the blitzkrieg could be cut off from the rest of the divisions by the enemy severing the very thin front on which they where attacked, cutting off supplies and rendering the attacking force useless.

[Torenico]

What killed France, especially in Tank Battles was the lack of communication and speed.

While the French had better armor, the S35 (Considered the Best Medium tank of Early War), pretty powerfull and well armed. Lacked Radios.

The Germans, with light armor, they were able to "Sneak" behind the Somuas and place some good shots on their backs. That, and coordinating massive flankings.

The Airforce activity? mostly german. Germany, again, had better communication. France and the UK planned several air strikes on Sedan, but they failed to arrive at the same moment. French fighters arrived first and they were engaged by German fighters. The french pulls back and then, the UK bombers arrives. They are completly massacred by the German Fighters and guess what, lots of losses because of the lack of coordination.

Now im thinking as a French Soldier during that time. Okay, in 1939 everyone was saying "Road to Berlin: Clear". France and the UK had a shitload of divisions ready to enter germany, after capturing some border towns with no resistance at all, they pulled back.

The french artillery fired, just because someone, important, from England visited the Maginot Line. Now, if everyone surrounding me is yelling "Maginot = Victory!", i would join them too. And when poland surrendered, and the massive german army was coming toward France, well ,i would expect a attack to the Maginot, because "Germany Respect Nuetral Nations".

And Guess what, Gremlin had 4 Armies. One in Northen France, ready to enter Belgium, around 10 Divisions, basically the Reserve, in front of the Bulge, the Maginot Garrisons and the Mountain troops around Merseille, in what i call, the "Lil Maginot". The Sweet Spot? these divisions in front of the Bulge. I heard most of them were soldiers taken from the Colonies, they had tanks like the FT17 and R35, taken by surprise completly because "No army can go trough the Bulge"...

Thanks to that supid Move, Gremlin lost all of his best Divisions in the Gent-Dunkirk Pocket.

Now lets back to the French Soldier. I, belive in the Maginot Theory. Now, when i hear about a major Breaktrough in Sedan, a massive campaign on the Netherlands and Belgium, and the Maginot, still looking for the enemy, wth, its all a lie, i was fooled!

Now, theres no plan, too scared to do one tho. I grab my rifle and try to organize something, but when i finish, i have Panzers in my ass.

I also heard about the Civilian Panic. Masses of civilians with their cars, horses, on foot, all going trough a Road. The army must move you know, and roads are too important, and when your tank company decides to take a road to Sedan, you find thousand and thousand of civilians on the road, no way to go.

I belive whats vital in a war is ...

-Morale
-Logistics
-Communication/Coordination
-Equipment
-Tactics

France had WW1 Tactics, updated with the use of tanks. Their tactic was just to use their Armor as defensive assets. Somehow they did a good job, but they lacked Mobility. While the germans had enough Mobility. Also remember, Stukas > Defenses.

In Theory, the Char B1 Bis was a beast during combat, i dont know what gun could penetrate its armor, but i doubt a PaK 36, 20mm, 3.7 cm KwK 38(t) L/47.8, or any other gun could not penetrate the Char Armor. The germans had two choises, Call Stukas or Call Artillery. Sometimes, depending on the Weather, they called Artillery, but what i heard, mostly, they called Stukas.

Now i think i stop for today, the Fall of France, imo, is the most interesting topic related to WW, if you consider the Battle of Nanking or Shanghai, then it would be the most interesting, for me.

Anyways, now a question, is there any report of a FT17 Engaging enemy armor? and Succeding?

[VonMudra]

The main thing I'll say, is that there is not one single by the book blitzkrieg attack that has ever been successful in WW2 without incredibly massive casulties that completly upset any gains.

Now before you say LOL WAT ABOOT POLAND AND FRANCE, you need to listen.

That was NOT blitzkrieg.  That was packaged and relabeled by the allied press as being blitzkrieg as a way to explain away their defeat, and then was immedietly glomed on and exploited by the Nazi Party, when they saw the propaganda coup it would be.  Here's the problem though.

Blitzkrieg, or breakthrough tactics, as proposed consist of pushing all your troops into a very SMALL front (Winter war which pushed them all down tiny roads and a tiny isthumus, Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, Kreta which pushed them all down only the air and airfields).  The idea is to create a rupture, that will be followed by more troops which will wage total war on the enemies supply systems, collapsing their front.

Here's the problem:  Any organized, rational enemy who knows that is the kind of the attack has two very EASY options.

1: Seal off the breach, attack its flanks, push back/surround attacking force, annihilate it.  (This is Winter War, Stalingrad, Battle of the Bulge stuff.)
2:  Attack forward into the now weak areas of the enemy front line, causing any push forward to simply draw them away from their lines (This is Kursk, Kharkov, Falaise Gap)

Now, let's look at Poland and France.  Yes, it was done FAST, that is the nature of the new abilities from tanks, airplanes, mechanized detachments, etc....but to call it blitzkrieg is far off base.

Poland:  Attacks take place along the ENTIRE front line including Prussia.  This caused an otherwise tough, resilient Polish Army to be spread far too thin, over a huge area.  While not all the attacks on the first week were successful, enough WERE that any polish units caught out in front after a local victory were forced to retreat or face annihilation by follow up units.  This is a wide front strategy.  You hammer your opponent over the entire front, or at least a LARGE area, with local objectives, and no major points of attack, EVERY point is the attack.  This causes the entire enemy position to devolve into a mess of scattered units, each fighting for their own survival.

Norway:  Same thing, German troops attack across Norway, from Oslo to Trondheim to Narvik.  They aren't always successful, but enough ARE that it causes the Norwegians to enter a never-ending retreat to Narvik, despite local victories.

France:  Same exact thing.  Its little known, but an entire Army Group, Army Group C, was delegated to the attack on the Maginot Line, mostly being slaughtered, but actually breaking through even there in some places, for instance on the Rhine where 88 guns were used to blow apart French positions just across the river.  Meanwhile, you have another Army group completely delegated to Holland, and another to Belgium and Northern France.  This forced the French/British to spread their army over a wide area, from the English Channel to the Swiss Border, indeed, some of the BEST French troops saw combat only in the forts of the Maginot, not giving up until after the official surrender.  Basically, its same as Poland.  The French and the British, and even the Dutch and Belgians, score localized victories, only for their flanks to collapse as other areas of the attack push through.

This same deal goes for Barbarossa, Normandy (Op Cobra combined with the British operations, with the finale of the Falaise Gap as Hither tried a Blitzkrieg in the hedgerows...), almost EVERY soviet offensive from 1943-45, most especially Bagration that completely destroyed Army Group Center of the German Army, and the list goes on.  Burma 1945, Japanese in China, Spanish Civil War, the Balkans....almost every large scale, wide front offensive is a complete success.  Its not the combined arms (that existed in WW1) or the new tanks or planes (that just makes combat more fluid), its the tactics.  WW1 was a perfect showcase of Blitzkrieg in fact, as sure it wasn't full of fast tanks, but when neither side has them, that is balenced out.  The allies tried, countless times, to break a very small front with many, many troops, and failed each time.  Only in 1918, with the german wide front offensives, followed by allied wide front offensives (and you can also rank the 1916 Brusilov offensive by the russians in this) do you see MAJOR, MAJOR success.

In the end, I'm not saying that the Germans didn't win in France or Poland.  I'm saying that calling it the "blitzkrieg" is far off from the truth on the ground....

[Fuchs]

>.>
Mudra.. How would you call that period of swift German invasions? Potatofest? I call it Blitzkrieg and thats what I want to discuss about.

[VonMudra]

I would call it the proof of the wide front doctrine.  Blitzkrieg is catchy, but its just the wrong name.  The theories of blitzkrieg, or breakthrough tactics, were disproven countless times, but because of the war time propagandists on both sides, it caught on.  Call it Potatofest, call it lightning war, but don't call it Blitzkrieg, that name has become too synonymous with the idea of breakthrough doctrine, which is what is supposedly IS, but which the facts refute it BEING.

[Torenico]

You never stop to surprise me 

Well ya, anyone knows if the FT17 actually engaged enemy tanks in a battle?

[Fuchs]

Well, they where in service with French troops so I guess some of them saw combat.

I would call it the proof of the wide front doctrine.  Blitzkrieg is catchy, but its just the wrong name.  The theories of blitzkrieg, or breakthrough tactics, were disproven countless times, but because of the war time propagandists on both sides, it caught on.  Call it Potatofest, call it lightning war, but don't call it Blitzkrieg, that name has become too synonymous with the idea of breakthrough doctrine, which is what is supposedly IS, but which the facts refute it BEING.

I'm just calling it Blitzkrieg, sorry. Potatofest sounds fun but irrelative and Lightning War is exactly the same as Blitzkrieg..
For me it's just a big name combining alot of falls of countries in the early 2 years of the war. It's easy and catchy and I don't want a thread title of 350 words just to make non-WW2 nerds think: 'don't they just mean Blitzkrieg?'.

[VonMudra]

Yeah, I understand, but my argument is still on tactical doctrine, and the misplace of names.  What is called blitzkrieg isn't, and what is blitzkrieg failed completely, or was simply too costly to maintain.

[Fuchs]

Okay.   But wrong names happen all the time, King Tiger is a good example. Though an easy solution is to just use Tiger II as propaganda. For Blitzkrieg there isn't a good replacing word if you know what I mean.

[Zoologic]

What Blitzkrieg has been translated into:

In an overly simplified layman terms, we were taught in high school and many other public media that the French and the rest of western Europe fell very quickly due to Blitzkrieg or Lightning war, an attack that is so fast, it caught the defender on surprise. Here, they stress the explanation on speed. It is like you have to shoot first before the enemy have a chance to press the trigger.

In the slightly geek-ish game titled "Blitzkrieg" (developed by Nival, published by CDV), the Blitzkrieg is defined as a very strong attack at certain point, thrusting the enemy defenses with massive forces (e.g. like impaling an armor with spear tip). The stronger and the more coordinated the attack, the more powerful the result is, and more likely to success. Besides speed, here they also added coordination and power, which the game itself tutor us to use all of our forces to make "a single devastating blow". Literary overpowering the enemy defense in an unexpectedly massive attack wave.

And today, i read Mudra's wall of text. I understand it as a form of breakthrough attack. It is like finding a weak spot in enemy defenses, that start an attack at that point. The idea of success is to induce a rupture in enemy front (starting from its weakest link).

What i am questioning is, what are the road to victory for those conditions? I mean, after you thrust the enemy line, and managed to secure a breakthrough, what if the enemy suddenly managed to close the tiny gap you've just open with blitzkrieg? Wasn't the idea is speed? So you quickly pushed on into a strategic object behind enemy lines (e.g. biggest city that secures crossroads, railways, etc), capture that objective and making the enemy defense lines useless by then?

[Flippy Warbear]

Lets not forget the oh-so-precious prelude to Operation Bagration, the Viipuri-Petroskoi offensive. That too was taking the breakthrough tactic into play like the soviets had started to do ever since their luck turned into their favor at Stalingrad. They chose one rather narrow path in the enemy line, barraged it with artillery and aerial bombardment and then rushed a huge tide of red iron through the gap deep into enemy territory.

But for their unfortune the enviroment in which they tried to play by these rules wasnt in their favor since the Isthmus is filled with rivers, lakes, swamps and cliffsides. Narrow roads that go through very thick unpassable forests which severely cut the pace of their progress, they were moving but not as fast as they wanted, yet it was fast for the defenders.

[Nerdsturm]

Von Mudra seems too hung up on the Schwerpunkt stage of the Blitzkrieg, which was only a method for causing a break in enemy lines. The idea that once a unit broke through it was to continue to push forward with the intent of acting before the enemy has time to react is the more important aspect of a Blitz, and this was definitely seen during some of German's early war offensives. As you said those invasions may not have been completely by the book, but nothing ever is so I can't see anything wrong with referring to them as Blitzs.