Could anyone stop Blitzkrieg in earlier in the War?

I'm afraid your the one who has not understood this discussion at all. Which achieves greater result: applying your force multipliers where the enemy is strong or where he is weak?

You also seem to be under some delusion that the Germans force multipliers are permanent. They are not. If the Germans do not destroy the great bulk of the French military in the first blow as they did IOTL, then the French will shake off their command lethargy and apply the lessons learned as they did IOTL. But unlike IOTL, they will still have material superiority instead of gross inferiority. Much of the force multipliers the Germans had would hence be lost. The Germans would likely win that battle, yes, but they would do so at the cost of losing the war (or, well, even more so then they did IOTL with their subsequent strategic stupidity). The difference between winning decisively and just winning.

Name the force multipliers. Should be simple. Just follow my posts and rattle them off. There are about fourteen of them I named, which you seem to not have noticed at all. So I am amused that you try to lecture ME about them.

And if you have not figured it out, some force multipliers (terrain and climate for example) are permanent. You have to know how to use them, though.
 
Last edited:
Name the force multipliers. Should be simple. Just follow my posts and rattle them off.

I'm not gonna go through all of them because your posts wind up becoming so incoherent as time goes on that they wind up confusing me, but the ones I did spot were Airpower, Communications, Organization, Officer Training, Terrain, Equipment, Combat Engineering, Command & Control. That's eight (or nine, if we decide that Command & Control are two separate things).

There are about fourteen of them I named, which you seem to not have noticed at all. So I am amused that you try to lecture ME about them.

Nah, I’ve noticed them. I even factored them into the scenario I posted earlier in the thread... that's what the line "and just because the Germans would be attacking into the teeth of the French forces wouldn't immediately erase all the problems the French military of 1940 labored under" refers too. I’ve just also notice you blithely assume that because they brought Germany the victory they needed IOTL (and not just a victory, a distinction you are either unable or unwilling to grasp) where they threw their main force at one of the places where the French was weakest, they would still do so in a TL Germany threw their main force at one of the places the French were strongest. But they won't, because the basic fact that the French forces are stronger there means the ratios will be more in the French's favor (or less in the German's, if you prefer). That means the results achieved will be less.

And if you have not figured it out, some force multipliers (terrain for example) are permanent. You have to use them, though.

Read my post again: Did I say that all the German force multipliers would be lost? Or most? Also, terrain is more best described as semi-permanent: the frontline moves around, after all. And terrain is also really only a force multiplier if it’s defended... as the French found to their cost in May of 1940.
 
Last edited:
They didn't retreat, they were pushed back into a cauldron based on the German operational plan; Stalin forbade retreat to the detriment of his forces.

I think you are possibly just mincing words, but from Wikipedia about the battle of Bialystok-Minsk.

In the evening of 25 June, the German XLVII Panzer Corps cut between Slonim and Vawkavysk, forcing Pavlov to order the withdrawal of all troops in the salient behind the Shchara River at Slonim to avoid encirclement. Most formations could not break contact with the Germans, and due to the loss of fuel and transport assets those who could break out, had to withdraw on foot. This withdrawal opened the southern approaches of Minsk.

They say the source is Barbarossa – The Air Battle, but I think the whole thing more or less is verbatim in Dubno by Aleksei Isaev. There are no books I know of that really give a good acounting of what happened in White Russia during the border battles.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think you are possibly just mincing words, but from Wikipedia about the battle of Bialystok-Minsk.

They say the source is Barbarossa – The Air Battle, but I think the whole thing more or less is verbatim in Dubno by Aleksei Isaev. There are no books I know of that really give a good acounting of what happened in White Russia during the border battles.
They didn't withdraw in the end either per that quote, Pavlov just gave a meaningless order. He was shot for disobeying orders and failure.
 
They didn't withdraw in the end either per that quote, Pavlov just gave a meaningless order. He was shot for disobeying orders and failure.

It says most formations, not all, though. Pavlov was recalled to Moscow, but only sometime after he lost communications with his forces there-- when the Panzers completed the encirclement and cut the communications lines. There were plenty of Soviets that retreated and were sent to penal battalions. On wikipedia it says how many Soviets participated and how many were captured it doesn't add up. That is the nature of blitzkrieg really, rather bad for infantry on foot
 

Deleted member 1487

It says most formations, not all, though. Pavlov was recalled to Moscow, but only sometime after he lost communications with his forces there-- when the Panzers completed the encirclement and cut the communications lines. There were plenty of Soviets that retreated and were sent to penal battalions. On wikipedia it says how many Soviets participated and how many were captured it doesn't add up. That is the nature of blitzkrieg really, rather bad for infantry on foot
Sure, some ran away or took to the forests and became partisans. Some were rounded up later.
 
I think it basically can be summed up that most examples of Soviet retreating on the Eastern Front tended to happen in spite of orders rather then because of them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Quoting me.



Which means, I don't know what you are trying to prove, except that you will not admit that you are wrong; have been wrong and no amount of retro posting and shaving of history to fit your distortions is gonna change the obvious. (See above.)

PS... That was GERMAN PROPAGANDA translated I cited, ON, or cannot you data mine sources? It was another deliberate trap I set for you.
Oops, wrong.

Not how we do things here. You don't "lay traps" or insult other members.

See ya in 7.
 
Not where they hit the enemy they weren't.

That's what I've been saying all the time about Blitzkrieg - and anyway it's usually true of the attacker, who will have the advantage of choosing the point of concentration of forces.

That said, it's false that the Germans were outnumbered in most of the campaigns of 1940 and 1941. They had numbers on their side, too. That changed only in 1942.
 
Top