Best Military Strategy of its Time

[Red Harvest]

When I say best military strategy, what I mean is the kind of things that were pretty much always used by the nations that employed them, like roman columns etc.

Sounds more like you are talking about tactical formations, not strategy. Strategy is the way a war or campaign is conducted.

[PanzerJaeger]

I didn't know Mongols had access to tanks and aircraft though
And I fail to see how the Blitzkrieg wasbased on the mongol way of war (well, there's the lightening attack factor, but that's about it).

I also don't have the same vision of the Blitzkrieg. From some books and articles I've read recently (mainly based on Karl-Heinz Frieser's work and researches), the Blitzkrieg success in France and Benelux was quite a miracle.
Then in Russia the Germans attacked by surprise a totally disorganised and leaderless army.

(Btw PJ, I once wrote that the SS did not perform better than the common german soldier, and you asked me where I read that. It was also in an article based on this guy's work, and it was indeed about the operations of the Campaign of France, not those who fight in Russia)

But apart from what I'd call the Blitzkrieg myth (and that's my point of view, based on my own readings), the Blitzkrieg was still more effective than all the strategies involved in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (Russian human waves, French 'all on defense').

Fair enough. I would also point out the African campaign as another example of the strength of the Blitz. Also, if you look closely at the russian campaign pre-stalingrad, huge russian armies were surrounded and taken. The Russian army was certainly not the best, but they did have many more tanks and of course men than the Germans yet still lost almost all of their original army to the Blitz.

The use of combined arms which was the cornerstone of Blitzkrieg was certainly revolutionary and is used by all modern armies. Pre-blitz direct air support was not taken seriously. The other huge element of the Blitz was the idea of a free and mobile armored force which was seen in both Gulf Wars. Before the Blitz I believe France, Britain and Russia had doctrines of infantry support, whereas after the worlds militaries realized how much more effective armored forces were when they were independent intities. And of course the mobile infantry - ie, halftracks and trucks - were new aswell, or at least first used to great effect by the Germans.

[Brenus]

The Best Strategy: Guerrilla war by Du Gesclin against the English in HYW, combined with the construction of castles which annihilated the low bow advantage of the English.
That is strategy.
Do not mix with tactic (Blitzkrieg is tactic, not strategy). And it is because the Germans weren’t able to change their tactic (and never even prepared an alternative concept) accordingly with their strategy, they lost the war.

[AggonyDuck]

Actually Brenus, saying that the Germans lost the war due to inability to change their tactics is a huge generalisation and quite false too.
The Germans were pretty much tactically superior most of the war to be honest and first at the end of the war did the Allies reach a tactical effiency of about the same level. But by then Germany had already de facto lost the war and this was more due to the fact that Germany couldn't handle the constant attrition.

[Brenus]

saying that the Germans lost the war due to inability to change their tactics is a huge generalisation and quite false too.”;
Can you described the new tactic developed by the German to re-emplace the Blitzkrieg? Name, if possible. Even in Kursk, the German tried to cut the Red Army from the rears, and to apply the same good tactic. No innovation, no new concept just a bigger scale. In defensive, they used the kessle, in offensive the blitzkrieg (without the means, air superiority).
The only people who defeated the Red Army when this one was ready came from your country, with the use of the line Mennerheim, light infantry, lot of sub-machinegun (Suomi) and skilled people using properly the terrain.
Prove me wrong and provide something else than an opinion, I will be happy to consider your facts and analyses.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'm going to have to go with the Greeks/Macedonians. I like the use of peltasts, that were not used by other nations (not many other nations at least)

[yesdachi]

A few Mongolian ones come to mind.

1 they kept multiple horses (2-4) and switched when one got tired enabling them to move quickly over vast amounts of land.

2 attacking at dusk and using stuffed dummies to sit on their extra horses to disguise their true numbers.

3 the feint (more of a tactic?)

I also like the Native American practice of baiting and then ambushing the “white man” in dead end canyons. Of course the white man supplying smallpox infested blankets to them was pretty effective, although not nearly as dramatic as a thousand Indians lined up around canyon walls.

The Roman use of the Pilum (sp? Throwing spear thing) was a nifty too (maybe a tactic also?).

Im getting confused between strategy and tactic.

[AggonyDuck]

Well to be honest the Germans didn't need to change the Blitzkrieg. It worked nicely, given the right terrain, weather and air superiority. But the problem that arose at the end of the war was especially the lack of air superiority and a lack of fuel. Hard to do a successful attack with your armoured forces, when enemy planes are attacking your troop concentrations and you're continously low on fuel. But this wasn't a failure of the strategy, because when given the needed circumstances the blitzkrieg was extremely powerful, as demonstrated in the Battle of the Bulge and several smaller counterattacks during the end of the war.

On the other hand I would hardly call Kursk a true blitzkrieg offensive. It was in fact more of a battle of attrition, than a battle of maneuver. (Although the Germans had intended it to be a battle of maneuver) Also this wasn't a failure of the doctrine, but more due to a bad use of it and the fact that the Russians knew when the attack was due and where. This allowed them to do some massive preparations for the defence. But still the battle of Kursk was a surprisingly close battle.

IMO the Germans lost the war not on the battlefields, but in manpower and industrial output....