The Strategic and Tactical Implications of The War That Came Early...

MacCaulay

Banned
...so I was reading West and East (great smooth read, love it to death. they should write more early-WWII stuff) and there was this line in it where this German was thinking about how the Nazis were trying to spin the war: that the Schlieffen Plan had at least worked better with them in charge than it had with the Kaiser.

And that kind of got this thought rolling around in my head: blitzkrieg, in all it's mental glory, is only thought of as such a brilliant amazing awe-inspiring strategy because it yielded such brilliant amazing awe-inspiring results.

It clobbered Poland in less than a month. It zinged the Low Countries like the only thing slowing down the Wehrmacht were the hairpin turns in Holland. It beat France.

But in West and East, that hasn't happened. There is no amazing strategic victory. You can't point at Wehrmacht soldiers on the English Channel and say, "See? That's what blitzkrieg can do for you. That's what combined arms warfare is about."
Because it's not doing that much. It's a sharp sword that's being split into daggers and thrown willy-nilly around Europe.

But it's obvious that the tactical doctrine is still there: The Path to Blitzkrieg: Doctrine and Training in the German Army, 1920-1939 by Michael Citino talks about how the idea of what everyone knows as "blitzkrieg" was in people's heads by 1932-33 and being instilled by the mid-30s.


So...what will the world take away from the German way of making war in a world where the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe didn't have any amazing successes to point to?
 
I think it would require a defensive war for this to happen, so expect tanks to be built slow and heavy (like the Tiger II) putting emphasis on protection and armour rather than mobility. Siege gun technology would probably advance as well. Planes like the Il-2 Sturmovik would take precedent over fast nimble fighters. The Stuka would possibly be upgraded, with heavier armour and better weapons, creating a proto version of the A-10. (IIRC, Rudel had a hand in the A-10's design). Blitzkrieg would be relegated to small unit actions like WW1's Stosstrüpen, useful to get through the lines, but not much else. Or I could be way off...:p
 
The battle for Poland wasn't what you would necessarily call a blitzkrieg. It was more conventional, now the battle of France, that was blitzkrieg.
 
But imagine the Germans hitting a wall in France, which is a distinct possibility. British reinforcements flow in country, forcing the Germans to retreat, and form defensive lines. The concept of blitzkrieg would be seen as a failure, and technology would reflect this.
 

Thande

Donor
The battle for Poland wasn't what you would necessarily call a blitzkrieg. It was more conventional, now the battle of France, that was blitzkrieg.

The invasion of Poland is where the word entered the English language, so it seems a little bit silly to disqualify it as an example of Blitzkrieg. That's like saying Spain in the Peninsular War wasn't an example of guerilla warfare.
 

Susano

Banned
The invasion of Poland is where the word entered the English language, so it seems a little bit silly to disqualify it as an example of Blitzkrieg. That's like saying Spain in the Peninsular War wasn't an example of guerilla warfare.

Really? I always did equate it with the western campaign. And of course, its a very specific strategy, depend on concentrated armoured atatcks, groudn forces - airforce coordination and excellent radio communications. That all was much more prelevant in the Western Campaign than in Poland.

Of course, thats rhethorical discussions that have nothing to do with MacCaulays question. Now, if the Blitzkrieg concept had not been as successful, I think you would conversely see the conventional French model strengthened - dispersed armoured units in a support role for the infantery. Probably eventually the airforce in a similar model. Which really isnt too bad a concept - I mean, these days everybody raves about combined arms, and the infantery is again the top category supported by the rest. I guess its just that the 30s/40s were not exactly the best time for it, heh...
 
I don't see how the Germans aren't eating shoes, to be honest. Where are they getting fuel? Munitions? Grain? Even in the winter of 1940, there was almost a coal crisis. In this TL? Umm.
 
If you ever wanted a Nazi coup TL this would be the way to do it. After a few months if not years of stalemate Hitler and the rest of his nuts could very conceivably be chucked out. This in my mind means that the UK and France would then arm up against the USSR for a future world war.
 
I read west and east also, as well as the book before it "Hitlers War". The original postulation is "what if the war started with Czechoslovakia as Hitler intended?". Basically the author believes the germans wouldn't have been able to beat the weather it time (which stalled the invasion of france right after poland) and the war in the west ground down into a slower WW1 like war (with the germans again pulling most of their army to the east).

Anyway, I was thinking "what if they did make it to paris in time?" basically having the war in europe jumpstarted about a year ahead of time. At first you might think "well the axis lose a year earlier", but consider that the war in spain is still going on (nationalists still led by Sanjuro), they (nationalists) would be prompted to side with the axis and invade Gibraltar (cutting off the Mediterranean). That may have allowed Rommel to win in Africa.

More importantly still, the German army could have avoided that terrible winter of 1941, which came as a shock to everyone, surely that could have carried them at least the extra miles to Moscow; maybe even knocking out Stalin (who ordered a last minute suicidal defense of the city). With Moscow gone the already low moral of the soviet army would have dropped even more, making the winter counter offensive (if there could be one with the Moscow rail lines gone) would have been half hearted.

With Zhukov still fighting the Japanese in Siberia (the imperial army would probably keep at it a little longer seeing Russia divided on two fronts [a long term fight they probably could have won]) and the Germans in a much stronger condition, the 6th army could have easily carried the day in Stalingrad (still going to be a hard fight though) and securing the oil rich caucasus (Rommel might even come up from the south [probably not but just saying {he could have at least gotten the middle east's oil}]) a german victory could easily be imagined on the eastern front.

With Russia out of the picture by 1942-1943 the Hitler would have had more then enough time to prepare for an Allied invasion of europe (1944). Even if they tried to speed up the invasion the germans would have the entire might of their army to face them (which sadly would have been more than enough to beat the D-day landing force [and probably the entire allied army in europe OTL {remember 90% of German forces fought on the eastern front}]).

:confused::confused::confused:
 
Rommel wasn't sent to North Africa until January of '41 IIRC. and with the British sending troops and equipment into Europe, the Italians should be dominating North Africa. I only read the first book, so if I'm wrong, forgive me.
 
Wait, if no one thinks blitzkreig is any good, they aren't going to develop the tactics that let you counter blitzkreig properly, yes?

So it just falls to the next army that decides to give the idea a go, and they'll hammer their opponent.

Or maybe I'm underthinking this.
 
Imagine the Germans building a massive defensive line, with artillery sighted, and powerful, yet slow tanks ready to plug any gaps, and short range interceptors and dive bombers providing aerial cover. Now take a combined arms force and hurl it at the line. It would be WWI on a larger scale, with the technology to reflect it. I could forsee the Germans building the P1000 and P1500, just in an attempt to break the stalemate.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wait, if no one thinks blitzkreig is any good, they aren't going to develop the tactics that let you counter blitzkreig properly, yes?

So it just falls to the next army that decides to give the idea a go, and they'll hammer their opponent.

Or maybe I'm underthinking this.

No, I think you're onto something here actually.

Well...what counters it, though? You need to have the kind of military that can engage an enemy with overwhelming defensive firepower to sap his forward momentum and take away that advantage that speed offers.

The army that blitzed through Poland and France, when faced with armoured combat itself, came up with the Panzerfaust. We came up with the bazooka. The British came up with the PIAT.

So...we don't see that as being important, since tanks aren't shown to be the game changers that they could be?

More AT guns, etc.?
 
Wasn't the Panzerfaust based on the Bazooka?

Anyway, look at British armoured doctrine during the invasion of France. The cruiser tanks would be seen as useless, except as scouts, while tanks like the Matilda II would thrive, if only for their ability to protect the infantry approaching the bunkers with satchel charges, and flame-throwers. As for future armoured vehicles, I don't think the British will be developing the Centurion any time soon.:(
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wasn't the Panzerfaust based on the Bazooka?

No, you're thinking of the German Panzerschreck.

Soldiers_Grossdeutschland_Panzerschreck-px800.jpg


I'm not a WWII scholar, but my insane lust for armour knowledge has led me to an odd fascination with German weaponry in WWII. The Panzerschreck was a copy of the bazooka, but increased up to 88mm.

Anyway, look at British armoured doctrine during the invasion of France. The cruiser tanks would be seen as useless, except as scouts, while tanks like the Matilda II would thrive, if only for their ability to protect the infantry approaching the bunkers with satchel charges, and flame-throwers. As for future armoured vehicles, I don't think the British will be developing the Centurion any time soon.:(

Any time without the Centurion isn't worth living in, that's all I've got to say.
 
Ah. My bad. You see my logic though. Look at how long it took for the British to develop an all-around tank instead of trying to jam different pegs... I mean tanks... into different holes... er, roles. THAT only happened after being on the receiving end of the blitzkrieg showed them the need for such a vehicle. Take that away and it begins looking very grim for the Centurion.
 
Harry's book is long on characterization and short on specific details of causation. ie: Gibraltar in book 1. In book 2, there is no mention of the LT 38t Czech tank in German use. French tank tactics seem to have a better effect. They seem to be already able to counter blitzkrieg so they won't have to learn how. This is not a how-to book with potential lessons to be learned. It is a who's he book about people's lives reacting to circumstances that don't necessarily follow a realistic path.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Harry's book is long on characterization and short on specific details of causation. ie: Gibraltar in book 1. In book 2, there is no mention of the LT 38t Czech tank in German use. French tank tactics seem to have a better effect. They seem to be already able to counter blitzkrieg so they won't have to learn how. This is not a how-to book with potential lessons to be learned. It is a who's he book about people's lives reacting to circumstances that don't necessarily follow a realistic path.

That sounds like a reason I like it. :D

But that's no reason not to throw the question around.
 
The general idea was completely discredited two years later anyway... the Germans after Kursk didn't mass their tanks but relied on kampfgruppen doctrine which was a forerunner of combined arms doctrine that was to shape planning for 40 years

At the frunz military academy the primary failure of blitzkrieg taught is that it can't take cities and is vulnerable to a mobile enemy with a plan of striking at flanks

If France built the maginot line to the channel it makes the idea die sooner
 
If France built the maginot line to the channel it makes the idea die sooner

this requires a fundamental shift in French strategic doctrine which would grant an advantage over OTL all on its own. Hell, you might actually see an allied assault on the rhineland following Poland, there would be no blitz on france.
 
Top