The myth of blitzkrieg

CWO Marc

Great post LHoffman. James Dunnigan’s book How to Make War has a good chapter on tanks which discusses what they can and cannot do, and the environments for which they are and are not suited. They’re at their best in flat, open terrain where they can operate like ships at sea, but in most other places (such as rubble-strewn urban areas) they have to crawl forward under the protection of infantrymen (who are more nimble and can see better what’s around them). Dunnigan quotes a US Marine Corps expression that says “Hunting tanks is fun and easy,” something that was also demonstrated by Soviet troops in WWII when they had the opportunity to do things like tossing satchel charges onto the backs of German Panzers.

I think it’s also Dunnigan’s book (or another source with which I’m confusing it) which makes the point that when fundamentally new technologies appear on the battlefield, this sometimes creates a situation in which the side against which it’s used is initially placed at a disadvantage. In short, sharp campaigns, this can be decisive. Over time, however, the surprise wears off, countermeasures (both in terms of weapons and tactics) are developed, and the novel technology soon becomes just one more standard part of a nation’s arsenal. The best commanders develop, on the strength of battle experience, a clear-headed appreciation of the optimal way of using the technology, which often means fitting it into a combined-arms approach to warfare. We saw this happen in the 20th century with tanks and with aircraft, and on the naval side of things the Battle of the Atlantic provides all sorts of examples too – for instance the acoustic torpedo, which gave the Allies a nasty surprise when the Germans started using it, but which they soon neutralized by developing decoy noisemakers.

Derek

I am not the author

Gargantua

Isn’t calling it the “Myth of Blitzkreig” a bit like calling it the “Myth of WWII”?

WWII didn’t really get it’s name until well into / after the conflict if I am not mistaken? And many other names were considered.

Britons also considered the German attack “The Blitz” and I think that’s where the term “Blitz Kreig” comes from. Less of a doctorine, and more of a description of the events that were going on. With nations and cities falling quickly/daily.

Imperious Leader

It was meant to be provocative, so he can sign a book deal latter based on other “discovery’s” only the the fringe would find comfort in. Young writers often pull that scam to make them stand out from other writers. He made his points and now he can sleep comfortably.

Hobbes

@Uncrustable:

In fact, given that virtually all states who possess tanks and mechanized armies also own nuclear weapons, it is unlikely we will ever see such wars of mass maneuver ever again; and the ability to fight other forms of war become more paramount.

This is an exaggeration - my country for sure has tanks and mechanized armies and does not have nuclear weapons and the number of states with nuclear weapons (USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan) is a minority considering the rest of the countries in the world.

LHoffman

@Hobbes:

@Uncrustable:

In fact, given that virtually all states who possess tanks and mechanized armies also own nuclear weapons, it is unlikely we will ever see such wars of mass maneuver ever again; and the ability to fight other forms of war become more paramount.

This is an exaggeration - my country for sure has tanks and mechanized armies and does not have nuclear weapons and the number of states with nuclear weapons (USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan) is a minority considering the rest of the countries in the world.

True. And given the extreme reticence to use those weapons shown throughout the past 60 years, I would think it more than likely that a relatively self-contained tank battle would not be good enough reason to use them anyway. Even for small scale tactical nukes.

Just Tomahawk or drone attack the SAM sites in the vicinity then send in the A-10s and Apaches for the slaughter.

CWO Marc

@Gargantua:

Isn’t calling it the “Myth of Blitzkreig” a bit like calling it the “Myth of WWII”? WWII didn’t really get it’s name until well into / after the conflict if I am not mistaken?Â And many other names were considered. Britons also considered the German attack “The Blitz” and I think that’s where the term “Blitz Kreig” comes from.Â Less of a doctorine, and more of a description of the events that were going on.Â With nations and cities falling quickly/daily.

I saw an American newsreel about the invasion of Poland in which the narrator says “World War II has begun!” The 1914-1918 war was already known as “The World War”, and in the summer of 1939 Chamberlain had warned that a German violation of Polish neutrality would ignite a general conflagration, so it didn’t require a lot of time or imagination for the term WWII to be invented. As for Blitzkrieg, I seem to recall that the term was invented by the British (possibly even by a British newspaper) to describe the fast-moving invasion of Poland. The term “the Blitz” to describe the bombing of London a year later was then derived from Blitzkrieg.

Gargantua

I saw an American newsreel about the invasion of Poland in which the narrator says “World War II has begun!”

Hang on… so before England and France or Germany even fired a shot at each other, and Russia/USA/Japan were at peace, the Americans were already calling it WW2???

frimmel

@Gargantua:

Isn’t calling it the “Myth of Blitzkreig” a bit like calling it the “Myth of WWII”?

Not really. I think the myth is that Germany created some heretofore unknown form of warfare which to some degree is factual but isn’t ever really challenged. It is also factual the Germans did not have particularly greater mechanization at the start of the war or that they created something from scratch and without parallel. Speedy victory has been advocated since Sun Tzu. The challenge is not to the facts of the war but to the interpretation.

It is fair to say that for many “Blitzkrieg” is used without much definition and with little nuance and to cover a wide variety of tactics and doctrine that might be better broken down and more carefully classified. What happens to the interpretation of the early war when you do that?

CWO Marc

@Gargantua:

I saw an American newsreel about the invasion of Poland in which the narrator says “World War II has begun!”

Hang on… so before England and France or Germany even fired a shot at each other,Â and Russia/USA/Japan were at peace, the Americans were already calling it WW2???

I said the newsreel was about the invasion of Poland (the campaign lasted six weeks), not about September 1st 1939. Britain and France declared war on September 3, which automatically brought in their respective empires, and within a few days the self-governing Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada had done the same too. So it was pretty much a world war by the end of the first week, which is probably the timeframe in which the newsreel was made (I can’t recall its details). Besides, people like H.G. Wells had been predicting another world war since as far back as 1933, so there’s nothing surprising about the phrases “World War II” or “Second World War”.

CWO Marc

@frimmel:

Not really. I think the myth is that Germany created some heretofore unknown form of warfare which to some degree is factual but isn’t ever really challenged. It is also factual the Germans did not have particularly greater mechanization at the start of the war or that they created something from scratch and without parallel.

Although some people do believe that the fast-moving, mechanized, combined-arms tactics which Germany used in 1939 and 1940 were a German invention that sprang out of nowhere, historians have been pointing out for decades that the basic theory of armoured warfare had been worked out on paper in the 1920s and 1930s by individuals like Fuller, Liddell-Hart, de Gaulle and Guderian. The Soviets were also early believers in armoured warfare, as illustrated by the fact that they snapped up Christie’s design for a torsion-bar tank suspension after the Americans had failed to show much interest in his invention. It later showed up on the T-34.

Germany had fewer tanks than the French and British in 1940, and its Panzer I and Panzer II tanks were decidedly lightweight compared to some of the Allied tanks, but one area where Germany was ahead was in the use of radio for the command and control of armoured forces. Germany had the same advantage in Russia in 1941, but the Soviets subsequently shaped up and started equiping their own tanks with radios.

Imperious Leader

Germany also massed their tanks, while French spread it out along the line…till it was too little, too late at Arras.

The myth of blitzkrieg

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

LST (landing ship tank) 18-June-1944 OVERLORD. Doors brake

What if Japan genuinely wanted a Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Classifying Panzer 1 as a tankette?

French divisions mobilized in 1939

which is better M4 Sherman or T-34-85?

WWII Myths

On this day during W.W. 2

What Would Happen If Spain Joined The Axis?

27

17.8k

40.4k

1.8m