I was over on the paradox forum where there is much conversation as to how the blitzkrieg doctrine would have evolved assuming germany had survived (presumably successfully) after 1945
Any thoughts?
Printable View
I was over on the paradox forum where there is much conversation as to how the blitzkrieg doctrine would have evolved assuming germany had survived (presumably successfully) after 1945
Any thoughts?
All tactics involving lightning quick offensive strikes seem to eventually be defeated by a defensive strategy that learns to predict the strikes from the opponent. Unlike a controlled advance, lightning strikes can't be called off as effectively, and the skilled defender has the advantage of knowing how the enemy will move after having seen enough of the offensive strategy in action. Also, once bogged down, the user of a lightning strike strategy can easily get panic and keep pushing forward despite taking huge losses. The blitzkrieg concept grew out of date by heavy artillery batteries (supported by mines, trenches, booby-traps etc.) and corresponding counter-attacks at critical points such as river lines and other natural defenses. Later, as planes got more accurate and/or devastating bombs, they could provide more concentrated firepower, which was also quick to redistribute (one of the keys the blitzkrieg was based on, only planes are even faster to redistribute along a frontline etc.). The development of better aircraft, including night fighters and carriers at sea made planes extremely flexible, and they were probably dominating already at the end of the war, even though in some sense tanks and artillery still in many cases remained important in some battles. Planes have remained the most powerful arms up to this day. I don't really think the ground blitzkrieg tactics could have reached a much higher potential than it did - it was no longer modern by the end of the war IMO.
Those are some valid points...nevertheless land doctrines remained...how would blitzkrieg or a mobility focus have evolved?
Its a difficult idea to contemplate I must admit.
Scotch, scotch, scotch...I love scotch...
^^ WTF?^^
:inquisitive:
I guess if you look at modern military doctrine you can see ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by lancelot
I think the main change to the Blitzkreig concept during the war was the addition of more and more heavily armed mobile infantry to accompany the tanks. This was due mainly, I think, to the proliferation of small infantry anti-tank weapons which made tanks alone more vulnerable.
I think the concept of Blitzkreig is still there, it's just become better refined with better communications between the various arms and so on.
Yes Blitzkrieg is still there.
Better planes doesnt mean end of Blitzkrieg, it means more effective blitzkrieg.
Look at both Gulfwars. Id call em blitxkrieg.
Planes were always an integrated part of the blitzkrieg. Without divebombers and other planes german blitzkrieg wouldnt be half as good, same goes today.
Goal in warfare is the same today, strike hard at schweerpunkt, make breakthrough, spread out behind enemy, envelop and push on.
Warfare has not gotten more static. It has gotten more mobile.
Kalle
Very much so... Even to the extent that now the blitz'ers don't even fan out behind the defenders much anymore. They strike right at the enemy heart instead (Gulf War II) and have troops coming after then secure their rears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
That it blitzkrieg in the extreme, a single continual schweerpunkt
Yes, but in Gulf wars the planes enabled destruction of most of the Iraqi tanks before inserting the ground troops, so it's not a comparable scenario to ww2. With both sides of equal strength in the air, static defense methods are possible to use. The key in armored spearheads is however that if you can't make effective use of the traps, once the spearhead has broken through it's nearly unstoppable. And I don't disagree to the fact that it has gotten more mobile - that was my entire point - that the new faster and longer range planes add even more mobility and that's also why they are even more effective than any land troops. Also tanks have gotten faster and more mobile, some interesting anti-AT mine weapons have been developed, and this adds some mobility to the ground troops, but I'd still say the planes have the upper hand, and the developments since 1945 are limited (by 1945 for example infantry with horses had been replaced by mechanized infantry, which is what's used today).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
Edit: by the way, the principle of concentrating the effort to a small spot and quickly redistributing troops isn't unique to blitzkrieg, it's a basic tactical principle since ancient times. The unique parts of blitzkrieg are the armored spearheads on the ground, and the principle of taking full advantage of a breakthrough through the enemy's defensive lines, and attacks being coordinated efforts from air, armor, artillery and infantry at the same time whenever possible. Nowadays planes are so superior that you don't need to coordinate the air campaigns with ground campaigns in the same way.
It was still very modern at the end of the war, it was just that the Germans lacked things that were necessary to use them. Air superiority was a must for blitzkrieg type of attack, due to the fact that it was the best counter against stopping enemy armoured divisions from counter-attacking in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Also I think that tactical doctrines themselves were only dominant before the conflict itself. When the superior "doctrine" is clear, then everyone pretty much adopts it, albeit they will mould it to their specific needs of course.
Everyone pretty much had their own adaptations of the "Blitzkrieg doctrine" at the end of the war.
On the question of how the blitzkrieg would had evolved, especially when put in a HoI2 context is hard, because the current situation forces changes in the tactical doctrines. If Germany was winning the war, then the doctrines used would be a lot different from what would be used if Germany was losing the war.
Actually it is proved that static linear defence can't stop a breakthrough from happening. Breakthroughs are rather easily achieved by putting massive firepower on a single point. The only way a static defence could handle massive firepower is by using a very deep defense-in-depth and thus grind the armoured spearhead to a halt after the initial breakthrough of the first lines of defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
A more successful method might be the use of armoured counterattacks against the enemy spearheads flanks after it has achieved a breakthrough. It will pretty much force the spearhead to halt and face your armour. This where the need for air superiority really is important, because nothing stops enemy armoured from moving to attack you as air attacks.
Actually there's one major addition to blitzkrieg nowadays that didn't exist during ww2, and that would be choppers. The choppers are too slow to be good against enemy ground to air weapons, but manouverable enough to allow faster transport than APCs and fire from another angle than the tanks on the ground. So after the wave of planes, the tanks can be sent in with chopper support to break strong ground points if there doesn't seem to be enough anti-aircraft defenses in the area. Choppers are not as suitable as planes to operate alone. Maybe the APC will be more extensively replaced by the chopper for transport than has already been the case?
@AggonyDuck: I meant defense in depth, but I also meant that tanks are vulnerable to a well handled anti-tank defense consisting of mines, AT launchers, own tanks redistributed along the line to counter-attack, and artillery - essentially combining depth and mobility in the defense. The combination can be more powerful than an attack, because the attack can't bring mines and hiding spots for AT launcher infantry, meaning the defender in the ideal cases gets everything the attacker has, plus a little more. This assumes he's redistributing his armor well along the line, and not keeping it still to be destroyed by the enemy. And again we were assuming equal strength in the air, so neither side would then have the upper edge there. Now the whole thing is complicated by minesweeper tanks that sometimes screen the normal armor, but if you can take them out your mines can still have an effect. Combined with the mobile counter-attack, this beats the blitzkrieg. Assuming the blitzkrieg by definition is the philosophy of being very offensive and building the entire strategy on breakthrough followed by taking advantage of the breakthrough.
The problem is that building such a defence along a whole long front demands a lot of material and time, but it will of course stop the breakthrough attempt. But an important aspect of the Blitzkrieg was the Indirect Approach concept and which pretty resulted in going around the enemy strongpoints instead of hitting them directly. Of course here's where intelligence plays a keyrole. If you know where the attack is going to come, you can prepare and stop it.
Yes, good point. Most cases of depth defense + counter-attacks came quite late in the war.
The Doctrine for advanced defence novadays atleat here is mobile defence.Since troops march Motorized and Mechanized fast today and the total Firepower of supporting weapon systems is so devastating the smart defender doesnt stay in place and instead decides when to fight and where.:bow:
This additionally stresses the need for air superiority today. Without air superiority to protect troop movements those mechanized formations will not be able to actually keep themselves mobile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
So the next move will be to neutralize the air cover. It was done by the Egyptians in 1973, when the SAM protected the tanks from the Israelis Air Force. If the Egyptians would have stick to this tactic, perhaps the outcome of the war would have change. Not sure, because the Sharon’s offensive was a master movement…
Don’t over estimate air power… At the end, it is up to the army to finish the fight.
Yep.I think Brenus has a point there.Ofcourse the land forces need SAM´s to provide cover when on movement. Actually when we look at the reacent conflicts the defender has always had very outdated weapon systems for protecting its troops from Air attacks.Ofcourse if the attacker has absolute Air supremacy the defender is mostly immobilized or will commit suicide moving its troops like in reacent Gulf Wars. But a smart defender who wants to win battles tryes always to have a local superiority over the enemy if he wants to stop the attacker becouse in most cases the attacker has superiority in overall numbers so the attacking side has potential to succeed in their Operation. So the modern defender needs to hide his forces properly when staying in put.provide enough weapon systems to protect his forces while in movement and try to provide locall superiority in both Air and Land when attacking.