Feed your mind: Part II Blitzkrieg Doctrine

[Archangel85]

Since 1) is fairly answered, I will start with

2) + 3) Let me start this with a simple question: Why didn't anybody think of napalm before someone did? Or the ridiculus idea that unbelievable small things called electrons might do anything useful? Both these inventions were the more or less logical conclusion from data, and its litte different with doctrines. One might call the Schlieffenplan of 19errr...12? the first try of blitzkrieg in its litteral mean - come over the enemy fast as lightning and defeat him before he realised what the hell happened. Others could call the preussian-french war of 1870/71 the first blitzkrieg, since it was won by encirceling the french in sedan and their surrender.
The encirlement-destruction was always a major part of the preussian officercorps' way of waging war. Using fast elements (be it cavallery or tanks matters little) is only the next logical step from it.

4)Blitzkrieg, or more the operational maneuver warfare, in essential, IS the doctrine of today. Or at least, it was when a large scale war in middle europe or other parts was still a possibility. After all, tanks have only become faster and all the infantry has been motorized, so blitzkrieg is easier then ever...at least from the technical point.
For the most recent usage look Desert storm and Iraqi freedom.

5)It worked absolutly stunning in russia, at least initially. 1,5 Million POWs would have brought any western power to the negotiation table ASAP. The russians instead did what they always did when invaded and lead by someone halfway competent - change space for time, haul in reserves from the vast siberian space and wait. Eventually, everyone runs dry. Napoleon did, the germans would have if it hadn't been for the revolution, and the germans did it again 1941. The country is just to vast to be controlled, and they know it. If they can keep fighting for an extended period of time, any enemy is done for.

6)Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, Patton.

7)It is one, big game of vabaque. It has been designed to fight with inferior forces and win. as someone in this board nicely put it, it requieres your enemy to cooperate to work. A smart enemy will cut of the trusts at the start, encirle the advancing fast elements (essentialy the best troops the enemy has) and then crushes them. So, Blitzkrieg can backfire bigtime.

 

[Archangel85]

One thing to note is that Blixtkrieg is a tactic, a correct use of resources on a tactical scale. Noone ever wins a war on the tactical scale.

It is sometimes said that the Germans did everything right on the tactical scale and the Russians everything right on the strategic.
That is why it didn't work.

Operational Manouver warfare isn't the same thing realy, it is on the level between tactical and strategical and is realy about moving troops around the battlefield to exploit weaknesses or counter attacks.

Modern tacticsare not realy blixtkrieg, nowadays most people think of the fragmented battlefield witout fronts, which makes the blixtkrieg which is a way of tacticaly breaching a front a bit obsolete. However the manouver warfare is exactly what the US doctrines are about.

As for Manstein using blixtkrieg, that depends how you see it. IIRC he never commanded a tactical unit. Druing the initial part of ww2 he was chief of staff to Rundstedt and a planner. Rommel, Guderian and a lot of others were commanding the panzerdivisions and therefore should have the credit of using it.

The Blitzkrieg is very strategical. Tactical it would see its implementation in the atctics trained, the fast attacks and the small scale combined warfare. But as I said before, for it to work it does matter little if its horses, trucks or tanks, all that matters is that it is faster then the enemy and can encircle, destruct and quickly advance onto important objectives.

 

[Archangel85]

That is not what tactics are.




I completely disagree. Aside from the fact that your conclusion is not obvious, it is neither correct. Consider what is involved in operational planning vs tactical planning.

Operational planning deals with broad objectives. In 1940, the German operational plan was to press through the Ardennes into northern France and then into Paris [Edit: before people disagree with this, I should note that their actual operational plan was much more involved than this, I just meant to say that this is an example of the scope of an operational plan]. Tactical planning deals specifically with engagement. Thus, their tactical plans specified breakthroughs, encirclement of large defensive forces, and elimination of the resulting pockets.

While it is true that the levels of planning are not clearly delineated and there is a great deal of overlap in practice, when you frame these properly, I would contend that blitzkrieg was obviously a tactical doctrine.

maybe I have a grossly wrong idea of tactical, but for me, tactical is everything from squad up to regimental, operational everything from regimental up to corps, and strategical everything above. So one could conclude that blitzkrieg is employed on every level, but it would be wrong to assume that Blitzkrieg is a tactic when it aims (and succeds) at encircleing entire armygroups...

 

[The Witch-King]

Actually first ideal blitzkrieg operation was Operation Desert Storm 1991.

With that kind of totally overwhelming superiority in everything, including easy terrain, then you cannot really talk about doctrine having much impact. But then again, maybe that's the "only fight with those who are much much weaker than you" doctrine - what on MUDs would be labelled as newbie-killing