Are Panzers necessary for Blitzkrieg?

I was thinking about Nazi resources and what hogs tanks were.

The invasions of Poland and France were more about rapid movement, concentration, and reaction times.

Would the Germans have been better served by mostly ignoring tanks and using the resources for a more complete motorization? In turn rely on Stukas and motorized artillery for breaking hard points.
 
At some point, you're going to need the firepower to punch through an important spot, and the armor to absorb return fire. Much as a pure motorized division can fulfill roles of fast movement and encirclement, at some point you're going to need something to hammer through hardened points and counter enemy tanks, and anti tank guns were too slow to be deployed in a lightning strike.

Furthermore, armored tanks were great for shock; they heavily damage the morale of an infantry unit trying to slow them down (especially if said unit was underequipped to handle them), and you can crush soldiers foolish or unlucky enough to be in their way. Sort of what Hannibal used to do with his elephants.
 
Given how crappy much of the early German Tanks were, possible for armored cars to to have pulled things off in 1939 and 1940.

It wasn't their thick armor or big guns, but more reliable and more mobile, with decent radio communication within the platoon and back to HQ, and that with the MkI mostly just having radio receivers with no transmitter
 
I don't think tanks are absolutely necessary for blitzkrieg. As others have said, they really do help, but they're not essential. To me, the most important aspects are mobility, recon-pulled doctrine, and good communications. You also need to be able to bring a fair bit of firepower to bear quickly - that might mean good FACs with aircraft on-call, or it might mean artillery that can keep up with the spearheads and respond quickly and accurately. But you don't actually NEED the panzers for it.
 
As for the OP: No, since 1930s combined arms warfare was an orchestra that needed all key instruments to perform correctly.

In the 1930s the ability to defeat entrenched machine guns and artillery could have been achieved with massed armored cars, motorized artillery and tactical air support. The key ability that tanks and other heavier AFVs added to the mix was the capability to deter and fight counterattacking enemy tanks.
 
Considering Blitzkrieg is just a propaganda name for the idea of movement and manoeuvre centric warfare, an idea that goes back to Sun Tzu via Napoleon, the Mongols, Huns and a dozen other armies on one level you don't need vehicles never mind tanks. However in the particular context of the Western Front in 1940 you almost certainly need tanks to achieve the decisive breakthrough at the Schwerpunkt to enable the transition from frontal to manoeuvre warfare. You also probably need them for the psychological impact, tanks roaming at will through the rear is scarier than lorry infantry.
 
In the 1930s the ability to defeat entrenched machine guns and artillery could have been achieved with massed armored cars, motorized artillery and tactical air support. The key ability that tanks and other heavier AFVs added to the mix was the capability to deter and fight counterattacking enemy tanks.

The French Army of 1940 gets a bad rap and they were not cut out for manoeuvre warfare but they performed extremely well defending prepared positions and the Hotchkiss 25mm was a good anti-armour weapon. Even with well coordinated fire support I think a German armoured car assault would splatter rather than pierce most of the time.
 
The French Army of 1940 gets a bad rap and they were not cut out for manoeuvre warfare but they performed extremely well defending prepared positions and the Hotchkiss 25mm was a good anti-armour weapon. Even with well coordinated fire support I think a German armoured car assault would splatter rather than pierce most of the time.
Not to mention the fact that their infantry support tank units generally actually performed as per doctrine, and counterattacked even without infantry support.
 
It was a niche thing - the average infantry division was crap at stopping tanks in 1940 and the communcation and training necessary to deal with such an attack was lacking.

The Germans in the Ardennes and the British in Compass showed that fast moving mechinised formations can defeat 'mainly by manouvre' backed with firepower larger numbers of more conventional enemies

Advance a few years and you would find anti tank guns at infantry battalion level, Anti tank mines used to passively defend obvious areas of approch, man packed AT weapons at platoon level and a more elastic defence in depth approch for larger parent formations, with better communication all geared to defeating such Panzer led attacks with a greater 'tribal' understanding of it among that nations military.
 
For Blitzkrieg
you need not only fast moving Tanks,
but also fast moving troop carrier like the Sd.Kfz. 251
and good working logistics with fast trucks that can follow them.

Next to that a good air-force with ground attack aircraft,
 

Deleted member 94680

Depends if you agree whether blitzkrieg is a ‘thing’ or not.

As others have said, for modern envelopment warfare, an armoured element is necessary when the enemy has hardened defensive forces. Before this, whether the Panzer I and II were needed in the numbers they were built is open to debate.
 
if you are attacking an enemy with tanks, don't you generally need your own tanks to face them?
You need AFVs, that can be wheeled, with the tradeoff in cross country mobility.

After all, the superior mobility of a 37mm armed M8 6 wheeled armored car, allowed the knocking out a King Tiger at point blank range near St Vith in 1944.

20mm to 37mm guns on early war Armored Cars wasn't unheard of, and no reason some of the later weapons that were in time fitted to ACs, been don in 1939-1940
 
You need AFVs, that can be wheeled, with the tradeoff in cross country mobility.

After all, the superior mobility of a 37mm armed M8 6 wheeled armored car, allowed the knocking out a King Tiger at point blank range near St Vith in 1944.

20mm to 37mm guns on early war Armored Cars wasn't unheard of, and no reason some of the later weapons that were in time fitted to ACs, been don in 1939-1940
I dunno… taking on Russian T-34 and KV-1 tanks with armored cars seems... dicey. And wouldn't wheeled ACs be at a disadvantage vs. tanks in muddy fields, etc.?
 
You do need tracked, armoured tanks for early phases of blitzkrieg. Once the front line has been by-passed, heavy armoured cars (Panhard 201 or EBR) are best at romping around enemy rear lines.
When heavy armoured cars encounter heavy defences, they harass until tanks arrive.

As for the speed or wheeled versus tracked APCs, SP guns, etc. ...... Armoured cars need support from infantry riding in wheeled APCs, while infantry supporting tanks are best mounted in tracked APCs.
 
I dunno… taking on Russian T-34 and KV-1 tanks with armored cars seems... dicey. And wouldn't wheeled ACs be at a disadvantage vs. tanks in muddy fields, etc.?
Panzer I and II weren't known for their awesomeness in mud. Narrow tracks.
But still better than armored cars.

But do need to go like with like: the M8 armored Car was twice as fast as the MkII, heavier armor, better gun, while still a ton lighter.

You ideally wouldn't want to be in either against a KV. But that's a late 1941 problem, not 1939
 
Top