"sturm" tactics?

[discovery1]

While reading a review (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0304352853/qid=1080182668/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4096034-5750365?v=glance&s=books) of Achtung - Panzer I read this:


Quote[/b] ]Nevertheless one can glean from Guderian's analysis how the development of Armoured forces - IN CONJUNCTION WITH AIR FORCES - was one of only two solutions to repeats of WW1 conditions in future conflicts assuming there were to be such. The other being the development of infantry "sturm" tactics, later exemplified by the
Waffen SS.

Pardon my ignorance but what are "sturm" tactics? Any help would be appreciated.

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Voigtkampf]

Explained well and simple enough. After the initial phase of attack, the infantry would let through the tanks, following their movement and dealing with all the pockets of resistance that the tanks would leave behind. Essentially, they would be "cleaning up" behind the main attack force, but as spmetla pointed out, the most important issue is to keep moving those forces all the time, not giving the enemy the chance to halt and regroup, driving them ahead of you.

[Plantagenet]

Basically the same "Blitzkrieg" tactics used by armored forces in WWII, but developed for German infantry in WWI. Main principles are the same: elite "storm troops" punch through the line and bypass strongpoints, penetrating as deeply and quickly as possible. This causes the enemy to either fall back or have his line of retreat and supply cut off. Meanwhile, conventional forces move in behind the storm troops, eliminate strongpoints, surround those units that didn't withdraw, and consolidate the gains made by the vanguard.

Just like the later Blitzkrieg, it worked surprisingly well; the storm troopers were highly-disciplined and well-trained in rapid assault. It just wasn't implemented soon enough. With the arrival of the AEF, it was only a matter of time before the Germans were overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers. Had they used these tactics in 1914-1917, the horrors of trench warfare may have been in large part avoided, and France knocked out of the war before America was roused from her slumber.

The main differences as far as Blitzkrieg goes were that the WWI storm troops weren't armored and had to rely mainly on artillery to support their advance. Guderian adapted the idea to fit new technology; panzers now formed the spearhead, followed by mechanized or at least motorized infantry, and with the advantage of close air support from tactical/dive bombers in addition to artillery. But this level of mobility and air power just wasn't available in WWI.

[discovery1]

So, basically tanks, or some elite infantry, would lead the assult with standard infantry supporting, yes?

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Mar. 25 2004,14:21)]So, basically tanks, or some elite infantry, would lead the assult with standard infantry supporting, yes?
In WWI, when the original "sturm" concept was developed, it was elite commando-style infantry, highly-trained in flexible small-unit "shock" assault tactics, that led the way.

In the WWII "Blitzkrieg", the tanks led the way, followed now by mechanized (armored halftracks) or at least motorized (trucks) infantry.

In both cases, the idea was to concentrate overwhelming force at a certain point, quickly punch through the enemy line, and keep moving. Any strongpoints were left for regular forces to deal with, and any enemy unit that did not fall back got cut off and surrounded.

[discovery1]

Ah, I see. Thanks all. Much apprciated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[ElmarkOFear]

German Artillery would supress the enemy frontline, while the German Armor would punch a hole in one area. The armor would overrun the frontline position to hit at the vulnerable enemy rear. Attacking enemy artillery positions, command HQs etc. Meanwhile, the German infantry would move up in numbers and keep the suppressed enemy frontline busy while the armor cleaned up the rest of the rear area. Halftracks and other fast units would then push deep into the enemy and cut off vital supply/communications lines. Sometimes the german infantry could move 50 or more kilometers in a day with little resistance. The only thing that made them stop was the lack of gasoline for the armor. They would have to wait for their supply line to catch up with them. Moving men and weapons was the easy part, moving all the supplies to sustain the armor and infantry was another. :)

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Mar. 25 2004,17:08)]
Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Mar. 25 2004,14:21)]So, basically tanks, or some elite infantry, would lead the assult with standard infantry supporting, yes?
In WWI, when the original "sturm" concept was developed, it was elite commando-style infantry, highly-trained in flexible small-unit "shock" assault tactics, that led the way.

In the WWII "Blitzkrieg", the tanks led the way, followed now by mechanized (armored halftracks) or at least motorized (trucks) infantry.

In both cases, the idea was to concentrate overwhelming force at a certain point, quickly punch through the enemy line, and keep moving. Any strongpoints were left for regular forces to deal with, and any enemy unit that did not fall back got cut off and surrounded.
Thats 100% correct, some others seemed a bit off though.

[BalkanTourist]

I believe you meant "swarm" tactics. There was a thread on that in the Entrance Hall and the guy had links to 2 really long great sites. In them the swarm tactics were discussed and examples were given - The Turks, Mongols - with their Horse Archers, Napoleon, and German tactics in WW2.

[bighairyman]

Your right, Napoleon used that same tactic, He would would concentrate most of his force in one area, lunch through, then surround the enemy, that's why he was so successful, even though his was often timed numerally inferior.

i wouldn't agree with the "swarm" tactic, it was used like that, Blitzkrieg was a fast mechanized war, it was fast, so fast that retreating troops won't even have time to stop and regroup,

picture a car chasing another car, it will hit it from behind, then it will continue on , hitting that back, so that car won't have time to sped off or something. yeah it's getting pretty late here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Czar Ivan Asen II @ April 12 2004,01:35)]I believe you meant "swarm" tactics. There was a thread on that in the Entrance Hall and the guy had links to 2 really long great sites. In them the swarm tactics were discussed and examples were given - The Turks, Mongols - with their Horse Archers, Napoleon, and German tactics in WW2.
NOOOO HE DIDN'T



SWARM TACTICS ARE ENITERLY DIFFERENT AND HAVE ABSOULUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH STURM TACTICS


THEY ARE POLAR OPPOSITTES FOR GODS SAKE


rant over.

[Hakonarson]

IIRC the German Sturm tactics from WW1 were actually copied from a captured French pamphlet on the idea.

Needless to say the French did not take the idea very far, and the Germans did

[DojoRat]

Another important function of the Inf, especially during the early phases of the breakthrough was to hold the sides of the gap that the armor and assault troops made. Units would go into the gap then turn 90% and establish a solid corridor through which the all important supplies could move without fear of interdiction. These solid shoulders were also important to fend of any local counterattacks mounted to close the gap.

[Oleander Ardens]

Some more information;

The infantry which spearheaded the advance got usually special trainig and was preperated quite intensivly to fulfill their task. Special "Kommandotruppen" studied the Situation, the enemy position and planned the operation carefully.

I personally think that this virtues were also develloped to some degree by the troops in the Alpine front, by both the Italians and the Austro-Hungarians. Infact the extreme enviroment made the use of large units impossible, so most attacks were made by rather small troops. Of course the level of preparation and tactical thinking varied..

The sucessful operation of combined Austrian and German forces in the 13th Isonzo battle which resultated in a catastrophic Italian defeat showed well the potential of it.

The Italians could only stop the advance thanks to a nice River and massive english and french help, and "win" because the Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ April 21 2004,12:04)]Some more information;

The infantry which spearheaded the advance got usually special trainig and was preperated quite intensivly to fulfill their task. Special "Kommandotruppen" studied the Situation, the enemy position and planned the operation carefully.

I personally think that this virtues were also develloped to some degree by the troops in the Alpine front, by both the Italians and the Austro-Hungarians. Infact the extreme enviroment made the use of large units impossible, so most attacks were made by rather small troops. Of course the level of preparation and tactical thinking varied..

The sucessful operation of combined Austrian and German forces in the 13th Isonzo battle which resultated in a catastrophic Italian defeat showed well the potential of it.

The Italians could only stop the advance thanks to a nice River and massive english and french help, and "win" because the Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed.
I think you're referring to the 12th Battle of the Isonzo (Battle of Caporetto)? If so, you're correct, it was the "breakthrough" strategy that won the battle.

The Germans and Austrians were outnumbered, but they picked a point in the line, concentrated their main force there, and smashed right through the Italian 2nd Army using "commando-style" assault tactics with grenades, flamethrowers, etc. Once through the breach, they kept going, advancing as quickly as possible, until they stretched their supply lines to the limit.

By the time it was over, the Austro-Germans had conquered all of Friuli and reached the Piave; the Italians had lost 300,000 killed or captured plus most of their artillery, and Gen. Cadorna was relieved of command. It was one of the most smashing victories of WWI, but it ultimately turned out bad for the Austrians; the Allies, previously content to let the Italians keep banging their heads against the Isonzo with no effect, now panicked. 5 British and 6 French divisions were dispatched to Italy, which meant the beginning of the end for Austria.

[Oleander Ardens]

Yes the breakthrough was done using the tactic of small "Stosstruppen" which proved successfully.

The point is that the need for commando-style tactics in the Alps did show how effective they can be if you have the right men and the right plan...

Gli alpini and die Jaeger fought one of the most terrible wars in extreme conditions, with the Jaeger usually heavily outnumbered and with worse supply able to hold their own...

BTW Austria-Hungary was more a victim of intern troubles caused by nationalism and the economic crises than defeats on the battlefield

[MalibuMan]

Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Mar. 24 2004,21:06)]
Quote[/b] ]Nevertheless one can glean from Guderian's analysis how the development of Armoured forces - IN CONJUNCTION WITH AIR FORCES - was one of only two solutions to repeats of WW1 conditions in future conflicts assuming there were to be such. The other being the development of infantry "sturm" tactics, later exemplified by the
Waffen SS.
There was one other moderately successful technique to break trench warfare in WW1 - the creeping barrage as developed by the French and English. I won't try and pretend it was anywhere near as good though

[Efrem Da King]

The Allies spent their resoures on developing the creeping barrage and a tank and aircraft assult while the germans went for sturm tactics.




And guess which ended up the one adopted for the future and perfected by the germans.....

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Efrem Da King @ April 23 2004,07:10)]The Allies spent their resoures on developing the creeping barrage and a tank and aircraft assult while the germans went for sturm tactics.




And guess which ended up the one adopted for the future and perfected by the germans.....
The most ironic part is while the Germans developed "sturm" tactics and the British developed the tank (Germany had only a small handful of tanks in WWI), it was the combination of the two that the Germans used to conquer Europe.

When the Panzer Divisions hit the Low Countries and France, the Allies were still dispersing their tanks for use as infantry support instead of massing them into offensive armored formations. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif