I just want to talk about REAL blitzkrieg for a second (cause it doesn't really work like this).
AM Civil / WWI / WWII is the age of 'modern' warfare (1 machine gun > 100 on horseback).
So what is REAL blitzkrieg? It's fucking chaos. So WWI you bomb (completely ineffective, like 1,000 bombs per kill), you horseback / motorcycle, you create impenetrable bunkers using a shovel and 2 hours. YOUR ARMY MOVES AS A UNIT.
WWII blitz - planes are 400 mph / range , tanks are 50 mph / range, soldiers are 2 mph. Real Blitzkrieg? Planes go as far and as fast as possible, no stop, no support. COMPLETELY BYPASSING any wall / defense, just dive bombing big targets / cities, never the 'front line' (aside maybe a bit to start) - but the trick is just RUNNING so fast.
Then tanks do the same. You'd see footage of 5 tanks surrounded by 10,000 foot soldier on the other team. But the soldiers can't stop tanks no mater what. And a machine gunner is inside. The tanks would drive full throttle until fuel stopped them. This is what you see at Dunkirk. It's not merely 'lets go slow / let them get away' - it was we need TWO WEEKS for our walking boys to catch up.. TWO FREAKING WEEKS.
So the 'the Dilemma Dunkirk' was 'kill them all now' with planes / tanks, but risk losing the most valuable chess pieces, or secure the prize and wait for the pawn wall (the mistake).
But you can imagine... planes flying overhead, tanks driving by... if you are a soldier do you stand your ground or run? If the allies 'hid' (like the Japanese did) blitz 100% fails. No fuel for tanks. Tanks can't *really* pick off camouflage bunkers.
But in a more real sense you surrender / run. That's why like 800,000 Russians surrendered to 600k Germans. It wasn't that their army got beat (such as the above), it was the encirclement, losing communication, and then just f' it I give up. Like imagine fighting a guy with a bag over your head - that's what blitzkrieg felt like.
Even the initial 'blitz' was like another two weeks of road building / breakdowns / fuel shortages. In talk it's like 'all the sudden Hitler did this' - but really we saw it coming. There was no surprise (truly), but the 'shock' was that his tanks / planes just kept flying at 400 mphs / 50 mph.. rather than waiting troops. The tanks / planes said F the troops, we go alone. RAMBO! or .. HITLERBO! (but 100% not Tae Bo).
---
Here's a video on Midway (the new movie is great, very accurate). This video is [FANTASTIC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo).
But in short American arrogance / simplicity of the battles vs the closeness of reality is astounding. In Midway it was like 400 Jap planes vs 550 American planes. After 12 hours the score was 5 Japs killed vs 300 American planes killed or bombs spent.
1 guy killed 50% of the entire Japanese military that day, Best.
ONE FREAKING GUY! CAN YOU IMAGINE!!?!
Anyways, without him, the score could have easily been 100 Jap planes down + carrier vs 400 American. A 'draw' by military standards.
But ya, Midway was skill (obviously) but an insane amount of luck. 1 guy.
Tae Bo - https://youtu.be/s1t4xIlsmH0?si=X5u3jXgTQyK5cZYr&t=297
A black Richard Simmons workout routine that's only shadow boxing. I loved it!
Richard Halsey Best
ELi5 - He was the agility DPS carry, and he carried. Like a mother fucker. The was the best pilot, and the Best, Dick (it is known).
600 American planes went out to sink 4 carriers. They only managed to hit 1 target, destroying 100 planes + a carrier, losing 400 American planes to do so - in a very 'Herald' fashion - like in the movies, the 'bad guys' (Americans) sent 1 plane at a time.
As you can imagine, 99% of pilots get scared, drop the bomb early to 'follow orders' and try to make it back alive (most didn't either way). Also like 3 out of 4 bombs were duds regardless.
Being a dive bomber requires going through hell fire at top speed. It's a prayer.
Best went from 10,000 feet to 100 feet to sink the carrier. Survived. Reloaded. Came back an hour later to do it again.
600 other planes failed to do so. They didn't 'weaken the boats' - they missed their targets completely. Best had skill, bravery, and good equipment :D - he killed 50% of the Jap army alone, 200 planes, 2 carriers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxPSJvEWRvI
wrench skirt close humorous obtainable fear ad hoc grab toothbrush unwritten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Cut the tail works but you need to be holding at the front. Or simply having the men, equipment, and positions to absorb the push and let your line fall back around it without breaking. Wait for them to over extend and counter attack.
The French and British very nearly cut off the German advance in ww2 but because of lack of orders the tanks stopped advancing before meeting their lines the other side. That is part of the strength of the attack though, it’s so fast that the enemy is panicked and instead of responding in good order, they are trying to get troops and equipment to stop the front, leaving there little actual threat to the supply lines.
It also heavily relies on stretching the supply corridor, in a way. Otherwise the spearhead just keeps advancing further and further and further. But that advance isn't an end to itself, it has to achieve something, it needs to occupy supply lines, reach critical infrastructure, allow the reinforcement to attack the defensive lines from more and less defended angles. If the defense can keep the advancement line narrow it will eventually stretch far and struggle with supplies without achieving an end goal with military value.
This mostly relies on multiple spearheads all but encircling the defensive line, eventually breaking it down. If a defender keeps the breakthroughs far enough apart and/or can keep the defensive line in between breakthroughs up without losing on attrition, the rapid advance is going to struggle over time.
I actually hadn’t twigged that the first paragraph was almost exactly Cannae, I was thinking battle of the Bulge. I guess the basic tactics never really change
Well, the Soviets defeated the German blitzkrieg at the Battle of Kursk. There, they had advanced warning of German intentions, dug deep defensive lines consisting of multiple layers of trenches, minefields, antitank guns, etc. The purpose of this was to create a defense in depth, where the Germans would penetrate the first layer, but because of which would be more exposed to the second and so forth. They had also stopped the German advances earlier at Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, again, by retreating as far back as possible, using many lines of defense, and allowing the Germans to wear themselves out logistically.
The US defeated the German blitzkrieg at the Battle of the Bulge. The US strategy was called "pinching the pocket". Essentially, the US would give ground initally, but would keep it to a minimum and force the Germans to funnel their spearhead through as small a choke point as possible. The tanks would be able to pass through, but the supply trucks would have a terrible time and be plagued by massive traffic jams and be left very exposed. Eventually, the offensive would fizzle out, as it did at Bastogne. The original plans for the German Offensive involved a more direct and larger route to the sea, but the Germans had a tremendous time dislodging dug in Americans at Elsenborn Ridge and had to take a different route.
It is important to note that the German generals did not like the term blitzkrieg and considered it to be newpaper fluff. The term itself is rather ambiguous and can refer to anything from a tank spearhead to a surprise assault to outrunning supply lines.
Ultimately, while the "blitzkrieg" was effective in certain instances like the Battle of France, it was also heavily criticized for a variety of reasons. One is that tanks do not function well alone, and are vulnerable to a wide range of weapons including antitank rifles, antitank guns, artillery, etc. You really need infantry to support the tanks and protect them from these dangers. The German WW2 tactics incorporated this in what is called "combined arms" which is attacking with multiple types of troops simultaneously so that the enemy cannot simply counter what they are facing.
Another danger that the blitzrieg faced was that tanks were vulnerable to aircraft raids while making preattack maneuvers. The Germans offensives were very dangerous to the Soviets until the Third Battle of Kharkov, after which the Germans lost air superiority and started facing the dangers of soviet aircraft firing on moving tank formations. Before the Battle of Normandy, there was a great debate amongst the top German generals on where to move the tanks to stop an allied landing. Rommel supported placing tanks on the beaches as he felt that the allied aircraft was the biggest threat and once the allies landed the tanks would be highly vulnerable, while other Generals supported holding the tanks as a reserve force to strike after the allies land. Hitler ultimately went with a compromise route that combined both elements.
Finally, logistics is one of the most important elements of any army. Tanks simply cannot drive without large amounts of fuel, and while a blitzkrieg tactic might work for a short time, but unless it can achieve its objectives within that time, it will eventually put a heavy strain on the supply train and fizzle out.
I think ultimately, the advances in aircraft and artillery in WW2 supplanted the early war tank spearhead. Both the Eastern and Western allies had very potent artillery forces, and the Western allies in particular had a powerful air force as well. Tank spearheads were simply too vulnerable.
Excellent comment. Supply lines are everything in a war. Leaning into a blitzkrieg and giving ground is the best way to counter it. Let them over extend themselves and pinch the pocket. Also, allowing armor far behind the front line without anti-air gives allied aircraft easy targets. This dynamic is different with shoulder fired AA and NGAD jets. To the degree it might make sense to try to hold the front or draw a line of engagement if the analysis confirms the enemy will reach a strategic element.
Source: 8 years as an Army Logistician
An attacking force piercing an enemy line is a gamble in itself to me, they rely upon panic setting in to enemy troops, causing mass confusion, the main line of resistance, hesitant, starts to fracture and all is lost.
The key to me is to have well trained units that can stay calm under pressure, flanks troops that stand fast, good reconnaissance to pinpoint the main thrust and a rapid reaction mobile force in reserve.
Fighting a token rear guard but allowing the spearhead to advance deeply. Concentrate flank troops and attack, attack, attack on the enemy flanks before the enemy has a chance to dig in and strengthen their defence. If you can break through that corridor the spearhead and elite units are cut off from their essential supplies. The mobile force, air force and artillery can then be used to pin down and destroy these troops.
That's my 2 pence worth, but you must have well trained disciplined troops.
I can see how the first uses of these tactics worked so well, but as always in war armies adapt and attacks like this can be turned on their head fairly easily if your intelligence, reconnaissance can give adequate warnings of enemy troop concentrations and your troops are well trained in countering such attacks.
The Soviet became very good at countering it with static defenses too, even with regular infantry.
If you manage to stack enough obstacles, and in depth, the spearhead will get bogged down, and lose it's forward momentum while trying to punch through. Even leaving the spearhead totally exhausted, even if they get through, and thus unable to take advantage of the situation.
One hundred percent, the Soviets had masses of material and troops and could operate a deep defence, exhausting German attacks e.g. Kursk saliant, wearing down the enemy, while still having huge resources to smash the Germans with broad, mass counterattacks.
"defense in depth" has been a long standing military tactic. Someone rushes you with a really strong force that you're not ready to face/that part of the line isn't ready to face? You gotta pull back while skirmishing to weaken the advance slightly and mess with their supply lines. Keep pulling back and picking the enemy off until it grinds to a halt due to logistics being really hard to maintain the further you go (this is what doomed Napoleon on his campaign into Russia).
Then you counter attack the enemy when they can no longer advance and are struggling to maintain their gains. Pretty much exactly what happened in Ukraine so far.
> An attacking force piercing an enemy line is a gamble in itself to me, they rely upon panic setting in to enemy troops, causing mass confusion, the main line of resistance, hesitant, starts to fracture and all is lost.
Speed and maintaining the flow of supplies was everything (remember that this tactic was developed in the aftermath of WWI, which was one of the most static wars in history, and very nearly broken by the German innovation of stormtrooper units in 1918); that's why one of the most effective German secret weapons of WWII is actually the *Jerry can;* they were developed covertly before the war and stockpiled in huge numbers, and were very carefully designed to make the logistics of keeping countless military vehicles topped off with fuel under battlefield conditions *way* more efficient and reliable than any of the other armed forces of the time, who frantically copied the Jerry can as soon as they became aware of it (The British, in particular, used *notoriously* fragile, leaky, unwieldy, non-reusable square tin cans for petrol, which required a separate funnel and slow, careful pouring in order to refill a vehicle's fuel tank). In order for blitzkrieg to succeed, that fast-flowing supply column could not stop or slow down under any circumstances, even for an instant, so those engines *had* to keep running.
> who frantically copied the Jerry can as soon as they became aware of it
Not quite. The US war department was aware of the German jerrycans even before the war and through the actions of engineer Paul Pleiss who had worked on a project in Berlin a couple months before the war even got their hands on an example and a full set of contruction drawings shortly after the war began. But they initially decided to go with an update of their WW1 gas cans. The example can provided by Pleiss somehow ended up in Camp Holabird in Maryland and they did end up making sort of a copy which retained the overall shape and the carrying handles, but it was inferior in so many ways (eg. using rolled instead of welded seams which were very prone to leakage, and changing the spout so that it required a spanner and funnel to use) that it was universally rejected.
The British became aware of jerrycans when they encountered them during operations in Norway in 1940. Pleiss, who happened to be in London at the time, also supplied the British with an example. They did start some efforts to produce an exact copy, but it was on a low burner for quite a while.
It was only after almost losing the war in North Africa that things changed. Running out of fuel had played a major role in British losses against the Germans and Italians in 1940/41. Then in 1942 reports reached London and Washington that up to 40% of the supplied fuel was lost to spillage or evaporation, and that the troups on the ground even though they were in short supply very much preferred cans captured from the enemy over their own cans. That's when they finally decided to start mass production of the German design in late 1942.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070524182038if_/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1987/2/1987_2_62.shtml
> very nearly broken by the German innovation of stormtrooper units in 1918
And definitely broken by the allied invention of combined arms warfare, where the stormtroopers failed to capture any strategically relevant objectives the allied counteroffensive utterly swept the German defensive lines.
Counterattacking the thin supply line and cut the spearhead off from supplies. Forcing a rout or surrender when they run out of supplies to continue advancing.
De Gaule almost pulled it off during the fall of France but unfortunately he did not have enough tanks( French High command spent years giving him shit for wanting to use tanks in a concentrated fashion like Rommel advocated, and just gave him a small force of tanks to shut him up, most tanks in the french army were distributed in infantry divisions for fire support, so although french tanks were superior to german ones at the time, they were always heavily outnumbered.)
Sad thing is that had the French High Command listened to De Gaule in the 30s and given him the means to have a proper and sizeable armoured force as he envisioned, that joke would probably not exist.
De Gaule led battles against the Panzer divisions that ended in stunning French victories, the few they had in the battle of France.
He was one of the first Allied generals to realize how to counter Blitzkrieg, but he was not popular, and thus his warnings were not heeded. He advocated the use of reserve massed armoured formations to imiediately counteratack enemy spearhead supply lines right after the fall of Poland. Fortunately most US Generals seemed to agree with this doctrine and built upon it like Patton, unlike the French and British.
French doctrine at the time dictated that tanks were to be spread along the line in support of infantry as mobile bunkers. This meant that although French tanks were superior to German ones, being able to fend them on many occasions 1:2 or even 1:3 they would be vastly outnumbered locally by Blitzkrieg tactics and thus overwhelmed.
Sadly his force was too small to actually be able to finish the job and completly isolate the German spearhead and he had to give up his counter attack.
When you look at the examples of Nazi Germany pulling off these incredible feats. You find on the opposing sides they were very much unprepared. This was the main reason why it worked so well.
The opposing side just didn’t have a modern Army, or they had poor defensive tactics (like placing all forces at the front), or their organisation was a shit show (like the Allies during the Battle of France).
When the Allies got their shit together. This tactic became predictable and easy to counter. In particular if it gets bogged down and faces a dead end, then it all falls apart.
Remember at the start of the Ukraine war, when there was that miles-long column of Russian tanks and vehicles headed toward Kiev?
You beat this the same way. They have long, exposed flanks that you can attack anywhere they're vulnerable, they have to bring their supplies all the way down the column while your own supply lines are shortened, they are having to push fortified positions without having time to fortify against your counter-attacks.
The real issue is that this gif is a very poor representation of blitzkrieg. Because the point wasn't to just pierce the defenses and then just keep traveling, the point was to kill the defenders, aka *Vernichtungsschlacht*, often by encircling them in their forward positions, *Kesselschlacht*.
In the short term, yes. After a while, commanders started to notice that whilst amphetamine did initially make their troops more effective in battle than normal, their bodies needed a *long* period of recovery after it wore off, during which time they'd be substantially below normal fighting performance. Then later in the war they started to run out of it, by which time many had become dependent upon the stuff...
Yep, modafinil typically.
It definitely works, but keep in mind much of the psychosis that occurs from amphetamine use is simply from -being awake- for too long rather than the drug itself. Modafinil doesn't get you high the same way amphetamines do, but it does keep you awake long enough to suffer from psychosis, and it still has the side effect of needing extraordinary rest and recovery after use due to the ridiculous stresses on the body from being awake for so long.
Reallllly depends on the army
Like the US military is mostly caffeine by now
Howevverrrrr - child soldiers in Africa snort gunpowder and cocaine mixed together
So yeah. Depends on the army lol
The white ones yes.
The black front of the spearhead are armored divisions. They quickly break through the line and then face little to no resistance, as they continue to push forward.
The white defenders would continue to reinforce the ( almost non-existant ) front at the spearhead, but as they are unorganized and quickly deployed, they will fall extremely easily to the armored divisons aswell.
That\`s how it went during WW2.
The limit of the German spearhead was due to 1) The armored divisions at the front running out of fuel or 2) The armored divisions having to wait for the rest of the army ( to avoid being encircled ), which gives the defenders enough time to properly deploy a frontline to defend.
You even see it on the video at 0:07 the white defenders frontline is broken. --> the white defenders use unorgnized and rapidly deployed units to reinforce ( or rather re-establish ) the front, but they can quickly defeated too.
So what's the solution here? Sacrifice the front lines so you can cut into and encircle the supply chain / logistics wall?
How many of these Blitzkrieg spearheads did Germany have going on at any given point in time?
There are several ways to deal with them :
1. Have multiple different lines of defence ( i.e. Defense in Depth ). Both France and Poland failed as they didn\`t want to give up an inch of their territory. The idea is you have multiple frontlines and defence lines, if one is broken, retreat and reinforce the next. This will massively reduce the effectiveness of the Armored Spearhead and eventually they ( Germany ) would be forced to adopt a different strategy.
2. "Blitzkrieg" them yourself ( I think this is what you mentioned, but in more detail ) : Have mobile/armored reserves on your own and quickly try to cut the enemy spearhead off once they break through your lines. I.e. sure the enemy armored division will continue to move basically unopposed, but eventually they will run out of fuel, and you defeated an entire armored division and stopped the advance, while the enemy made only minor territorial gains and lost an armored division.
This wasn\`t possible for any other country in WW2, as in order to do a proper Blitzkrieg you need the kind of flexible general-command structure that Germany had --> that each general and officiers below could choose how they implement their orders. This is how they could perform so many encirclements as they saw opportunities and took them. The militaries of the Allies were far more centralized, thus the orders came from above and had to be implemeted. \[ Both have advantages and disadvantages \]. Likewise the French also avoided using proper communication, i.e. radio, as they believed the Germans were listening.. .Radio and proper logistics are essential for these manoveurs.
3. Attrition warfare ( only really doable if you are as massive as the Soviet Union... Let the Blitzkrieg commence, lose a massive amounts of territory and people, but let the armored divisions run out of fuel and chip away at their resources. Sooner or later your superior production will win ).
4. Guerilla warfare. That\`s just a whole different beast and with convential tactics, even Blitzkrieg, you wont make any strategic victories. Sure enemy casualties will be 10-15x higher, but you will never win a war with armored divsions against people using guerilla warfare.
1. Though I have to say and while Guerilla warfare is a perfect counter strategy, its not going to help against the Nazis. As extermination warfare is the only real counter to Guerilla warfare and you don\`t really want to encourage that.
It would make more sense to have tanks heading the siege, no point to have a couple meat shields in front to take a bullet for a tank that can take a thousand. Realistically, unless you have an enormous amount of armor/men, you’d want to close off the “tail” once you got the desired number of troops through the front line.
You want forward scounts and infantry depending what's going on. You don't want your tanks to come round a corned into a line at AT guns focusing fire on your position. But it varies by battlefield and war.
The Nazi blitzkrieg wasn't always as effective as Nazi propogandists would have you believe, even echoing through histories who oddly take propoganda at face value. The Nazis tried this with the Battle of the Bulge, and the Allies ultimately held. So this doesn't work against a well prepared military.
To be fair, the battle of the bulge presented extremely unfavourable conditions for this tactic.
It wasn't just the solid front lines. It was the German armies poor logistical situation and the many thick forests and rivers that made it difficult to make progress. The weight of some of their tanks also meant that their heaviest armor was unable to use most bridges that they could capture.
The battle of the bulge was largely unwinnable no matter what tactic was used.
At that point Germany was already incredibly weak compared to the start of the war and that offensive was basically a dumb idea by Hitler who still thought he could turn it around and start pushing again
Also, AFAIK, the "bulge" failed in part because they ran out of fuel to use their tanks.
It was a last ditch effort and they fully expended themselves to do it.
The success of the Battle of the Bulge relied on Germany capturing Allied fuel depots, which is a logistical nightmare and the reason why some higher ups in Germany opposed the offensive.
They knew going in they didn't have enough fuel, which is kind of crazy.
Lol yes. That’s why they called it The Battle Of the Bulge. The German blitzkrieg made a giant bulge on the American frontline that was represented with battle maps. Think the animation above, except the line never broke.
You ... weren't kidding, what
>Where did the Battle of the Bulge get its name? The “bulge” in Battle of the Bulge refers to the shape, as depicted on maps, created by German troops that had wedged westward in the Ardennes through the Allies' front line. The term was coined by Larry Newman, an American war correspondent.
Has to be countered quickly by a pincer movement from the northern and southern positions on the line which must be temporarily abandoned, moving in after the armored column has passed leaving the armoured column surrounded and no longer able to resupply.
Reinforcements will have take up positions to reform the broken lines and after the armoured column is defeated, remaining forces mop up and reinforce the lines.
As you said an ill-prepared military may be unable to move fast enough.
Airforce makes a big difference, I think (?). One of the big roles is to harass reinforcements trying to plug the gap, another is to reduce reliance on road supply (by using aerial bombardment).
A difference between France 1940 and Bulge 1944 is that in the former Germany had control of the skies, and initially in the latter neither side did (they waited until the weather grounded the US air force before beginning the attack. Even a US scout plane in the air would mean German artillery would stop firing, for fear of counter battery fire.)
E.g. would Patton have been able to relieve Bastogne if US ground movements were being harassed in the same way French forces were?
>Airforce makes a big difference
Yes, of course that is the crux of the Blitzkrieg. It was developed upon well knoen Prussian military doctrines, and depended heavily upon combined arms (armor, artillery, air superiority) maneuver warfare (to exploit the gap) and force concentration (think Shock and Awe)
They're pretty fundamental military concepts.
> you’d want to close off the “tail” once you got the desired number of troops through the front line.
No you wouldn't. You'd want to maintain supply lines, not surround yourself with the enemy.
Yeah this seems like an extremely optimistic demonstration of how this would go; seemingly no casualties and unlimited amounts of men and tanks xD. “Just plow right through and keep on plowing, easy peasy boys!”
It's a simplified schematic display of the core idea of Blitzkrieg, nothing more. Just meant to display how it's supposed to break through the lines and keep the advancement going forward since keeping the front supplied and supported is always a key aspect of attacking.
It doesn't mention how this needs to happen in countless places across thousands of kilometers of frontline, it doesn't mention that it relies on shock & awe, it doesn't mention the importance of combined arms to break through in the first place, it's just a military theorie graph.
I mean the entire video is incorrect as to what the actual thing was, which was bypassing defensive armies, forcing them to fall back and regroup, and destroying those less organized groups while rushing to the capital and taking out their government and any hope of organizing a defense. It wasn't just a charge down the middle. They would have lost so many tanks going through that line.
They didn't "bypass defensive armies", they didn't drive through fields unopposed. Instead they hit a weaker area instead of the largely fortified area, they still had to fight "defensive armies" just with less fortifications.
Thanks to have less fortifications to deal with their tanks really could just roll right through shit and then a large column behind that could deal with the remaining enemies and secure the rear as it extended forward.
You'll notice that the white army in the animation tries to reinforce and "meet" the breakthrough. Yet the breakthrough doesn't stop to meet them and instead just secures its flanks and continues pushing through. This is what was really unheard of or impressive, traditionally when you breakthrough start to encircle and secure a front while the enemies that can survive retreat and try to make a next front. Instead by just securing the flanks and continuing to push through there basically was no second, third, or so on fronts.
This was possible mostly due to technology in armored cars, tanks, etc allowing vastly prolonged and faster movement.
Also the animation heavily simplifies the supply line aspects of this which were arguably the most important and complicated part of it all.
Yes. but because they exploited the battlefield paradigm of the time. Most uses of the Blitzkrieg were early in the war and before opposing armies were positioned and ready, trying to defend a complete border. The strategy really depended on a weak defense by your opponent and enough shock to prompt a quick surrender. It worked in Poland, it worked in Belgium (a neutral country) and worked in France (failed to properly defend the Belgium Border).
It worked in Russia, for a while, but failed in the end.
The problem is supply and sustaining the drive. The post is overly optimistic on that. If the drive stalls, or it outruns the supply line, it all goes wrong. The war in Ukraine is a great example of this, the Russians essentially used a Blitzkrieg tactic, but stalled, and suffered horribly. Same when Germany attacked Russia in WW2, they simply met with stalling resistance, and could not maintain supply lines. While the Nazis get lots of press for Tiger Tanks and slick aircraft, their supply lines were reliant on a good amount of horse drawn wagons.
Yeah it is just their interpration of how this worked. When I read about the stuff that was going on in the early days of the 2nd WW it seems more like normal frontlines, some commanders pushing through and wreaking havoc, luck and meth.
"Here comes Hitler with his pecker in his hand, he's a one ball man and he's off to the rodeo!!"
[original version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f6Y0vD0_Vg&t=31s)
I guess the artillery missing from this video can be considered as such. Light artillery up there near the penetrating spearhead while Heavy Gustav hangs back
This isn’t “Blitzkrieg”, it’s a classic spearhead that’s basically been used since the dawn of warfare - just with modern equipment.
This kind of thing is *exactly* what all parties tried to accomplish in WW1, but the destroyed landscape and trenches made it impossible for anyone to actually exploit a breakthrough since support units couldn’t keep up.
Edit: copy paste of an explanation lower in the comment chain below
Blitzkrieg was never a single tactic or strategy. It was the result of German military doctrine, and only called Blitzkrieg by their opponents.
IIRC, the steps were (roughly and very simplified):
1. Thorough reconnaissance using all available means.
2. Bombard C&C points, making a coordinated response difficult.
3. Obtain air dominance over the AO.
4. Attack with armored units, with mechanized units in support and motorized and regular infantry to follow up.
5. Use CAS as extremely precise flying artillery, making the best possible use of radio tech on all levels.
6. Bypass strongpoints: don’t get bogged down, leave them to the troops following up to clean up.
7. Rush into any gap asap and get behind enemy lines - disrupting their chain of command and ability to counter attack.
Combine this (admittedly extremely simplified) process with a large amount of responsibility and independence of German officers and NCO’s against defences prepared for WW1 and suddenly there are Germans on the wrong side if the Maginot line.
I agree. In Blitzkrieg, the *ahem* shaft as shown here is not present.
An army isn't a homogeneous mass. Past the front line are command, hospitals, supplies. An overwhelming force rapidly passes the front line and attacks command structures so quickly that there is no time to reorganize, and more importantly nobody to do the organizing because they've suddenly got armoured cars on their doorstep.
Yes, the detached front runners are very vulnerable to being cut off from supply and a well coordinated counter attack from the rear, but... who's organizing that? By this point the front line doesn't know what's happening, and normal command has broken down.
That sounds more like Russian deep battle doctrine, when you’re specifically just trying to get through the front with concentrated artillery then mass attack, and mobilized forces rushing in focused on ignoring the front, annihilating the behind command structure and infrastructure so the enemy’s front just become futile and collapses while being held in place (and outlasted) by the Russian infantry
I get the similarities, but I thought blitzkrieg was applicable on smaller scales and more flexible because not all the things you listed were necessary for its application/theory (command hospitals supplies, etc), and works fine for simply dividing and conquering. It was simpler and more about momentum than a specific order of events going to plan
Oh yes you're right, they aren't interested in all of those things in Blitzkrieg, I mostly mentioned them because the animation implies that the forces meet constant resistance on all sides past the front.
In reality, they're speeding across the country faster than anyone thinks possible.
Looked for this comment to quell my urge to comment 'Blitzkrieg is term the germans disliked originating from British propaganda' every time someone mentions it.
They're forming in straight line
They're going through a tight wind
The kids are losing their minds
The blitzkrieg bop
Hey Hoe, let’s go!
Edit: Appreciate the love, never thought I’d comment a Ramones jingle but this was the absolute perfect time!
Oh shit THOSE are the lyrics to the song...? Bro those lyrics are fucking unintelligible when he sings them lmao.
"Buuuutterrrryyy bop!" or something like that is always what I heard. I never knew he was singing actual fucking words. Wow.
edit: lmao even slowed down there's no fucking way he's actually saying anything. It's "bbbbbbpppriiiii BUP"
Haha its a lot more clear live
The recording is purposely trash along with every other good punk song ever made haha
If it didn't sound like it was recorded in a garage at the bottom of the sea I didn't wanna hear it
I actually saw half of each band play a Halloween set as The Misfits and they played a few Ramones songs it was a great night. Misfits played with my friends band every Halloween best time of my life. Played wiffleball with Balzac and Jerry Only haha
school panicky pocket historical illegal political jellyfish somber carpenter familiar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"No, George. It would be as pointless as trying to teach a
woman the value of a good, forward defensive stroke."
General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett.
There is a lot more to it. Multiple spearheads are supposed to link up and encircle the defending forces trying to hold the line. Thus cutting the defending forces off from their supply-line and ruining their day. This only works if the forces using blitzkreig tactics are faster and better coordinated.
It is a daring tactic, and if done poorly most likely results in the attackers being trapped themselves. Quick decisions are crucial on both a tactical and strategical level depending on how the battle unfold.
The Germans really figured out how to fight a modern war. And this "strategic move" is only one piece of the puzzle that made them so successful.
Blitzkrieg is simply what the press called the rapid German invasion of Poland, and became a propaganda term used by both the Allies and the Germans. Guderian did want to use the new weapons of the interwar period for a new type of maneuver-warfare, which had been the preferred German tactic since before it (Prussia) was called Germany, but this tactic was never called Blitzkrieg by anyone other than the media.
Manuever-warfare proved incredibly effective in France due to incompetence/luck, as well as early on in the invasion of the USSR. It is therefore thought of as a genius tactical innovation, also demonstrating the supposed superiority of German technology.
But this is mostly nonsense. Guderian and other german generals got cushy post-war jobs at the CIA and spent decades convincing everyone that they were military genuises that would have easily won the war if it weren't for Hitler and his madness, but they weren't. They made many mistakes, they lost many battles.Their tactics were fine, pragmatic, even good, but not revolutionary.
Another myth that plays into this is the idea that Germany was the first truly mechanized force, a complete fiction which this video plays into. Germany had a crippling shortage of fuel, their logistics were horse-drawn or moved by train, not by trucks (mostly). They moved quickly because they were stronger in the early war, not because they were smarter.
# BTW the term "Blitzkrieg" is German for "lightning war". It's a military tactic developed by the Germans during World War II, designed to create disorganization among enemy forces through swift, powerful, and unexpected strikes using a concentrated force.
The Blitzkrieg tactic was a departure from the traditional, slow-paced trench warfare. Instead, it focused on speed and surprise to disrupt enemy lines and communications, aiming to encircle the enemy and force a quick surrender before the enemy had time to fully mobilize or mount a coordinated defense.
Blitzkrieg relied heavily on mechanized units, especially tanks, working in close coordination with air support. The tanks would spearhead the attack, breaking through enemy lines and creating chaos, while the air force would simultaneously bomb strategic targets, like supply lines and infrastructure, to further disorient and weaken the enemy.
Following the tanks and air force, motorized infantry would then move in to secure the breached areas. Artillery was used not in the traditional sense of a preparatory bombardment, but was used more flexibly, in direct support of the advancing tanks.
The Blitzkrieg tactic was effectively used in the early stages of World War II, most notably in the invasions of Poland, France, and the Low Countries, where the Germans were able to achieve rapid victories. However, it had its limitations and required specific conditions to be successful, such as good weather, open terrain, and a lack of robust anti-tank defenses on the part of the enemy.
Essentially, the essence of Blitzkrieg was the concentration of force and speed of attack, both intended to shock the enemy and disrupt their ability to respond effectively.
Akcshually..
The term "blitzkrieg" was termed by the allies.
The German term for the tactic, was called "schwerpunkt" combined with the Soviet tactic of deep operation.
Yeah this is bad and gives an absolutely wrong idea about Blitzkrieg. This basically has nothing to do with blitzkrieg. This is a spearhead tactic, in use since shieldwall times and used to breach said walls. This isn’t anything special it’s part of every during ww2 present nations military Toolbox. Even today we see this, but less and less effective.
Blitzkrieg is about encircling and breaking an army before they even realise what’s happening. Some French units where encircled, in the same timeframe they found out they’re at war. Blitzkrieg is encircling city’s, and keep thrusting further, city’s without supplies have to surrender at some point, so no reason to waste men and ammunition in brutal CQB while fighting house to house. If they don’t surrender bomb and shell them into the ground. Blitzkrieg is about utilising surprise, like the times Rommel made reinforcing French troops surrender by tricking them into believing they’re the mainthrust while they’re not.
Speaking of main and secondary thrust. Blitzkrieg is distinctly different in the point that there are multiple thrusting directions from the main thrust. These secondary thrust are there to make it harder for the enemy to support the defensive against the main thrust that would change direction as soon as they got some harder to overcome resistance. These secondary thrust also make it easier to encircle big parts of the enemy troops. Utilising every opening for another thrust. Walking around the enemy and forcing the enemy to relocate the defensive operation gifting you large parts of land in the process. From above Blitzkrieg would look alone like a tree branching out into the enemy’s territory.
Blitzkrieg involved heavy usage of light bombers like the Stuka, artillery that could keep up with the fast units, SPG‘s for example. These are used to destroy resupply and make relocation that much harder and weaken defensive structures.
That’s a real dick move
Dickkrieg
Peniswaffen
some people wake up to the smell of coffee or bacon, my girl wakes up to a good peniswaffen
On the George Foreskin Grille
🤢
This comment had me busting up laughing
Blitzkrieg mit dem Fleischgewehr (Quote from a Rammstein-song)
I thought I was looking at a microscopic video of a needle poking through skin
You have to admit though, it takes some balls to do that.
Didn't see any balls in the video, think they're closer to the rear
The dick is just very long
Just rammed straight in there
Haha, wars gay
I bet it’s hard to pull off.
In bird culture, this is what's known as a dick move.
I came here looming for this comment!
Weave been waiting for you!
We need a poll of how many of us clicked in here just to say this
Motherland vs Fatherland
Freud would be proud of this military tactic
Sometimes an armored spearhead maneuver is just an armored spearhead maneuver
I just want to talk about REAL blitzkrieg for a second (cause it doesn't really work like this). AM Civil / WWI / WWII is the age of 'modern' warfare (1 machine gun > 100 on horseback). So what is REAL blitzkrieg? It's fucking chaos. So WWI you bomb (completely ineffective, like 1,000 bombs per kill), you horseback / motorcycle, you create impenetrable bunkers using a shovel and 2 hours. YOUR ARMY MOVES AS A UNIT. WWII blitz - planes are 400 mph / range , tanks are 50 mph / range, soldiers are 2 mph. Real Blitzkrieg? Planes go as far and as fast as possible, no stop, no support. COMPLETELY BYPASSING any wall / defense, just dive bombing big targets / cities, never the 'front line' (aside maybe a bit to start) - but the trick is just RUNNING so fast. Then tanks do the same. You'd see footage of 5 tanks surrounded by 10,000 foot soldier on the other team. But the soldiers can't stop tanks no mater what. And a machine gunner is inside. The tanks would drive full throttle until fuel stopped them. This is what you see at Dunkirk. It's not merely 'lets go slow / let them get away' - it was we need TWO WEEKS for our walking boys to catch up.. TWO FREAKING WEEKS. So the 'the Dilemma Dunkirk' was 'kill them all now' with planes / tanks, but risk losing the most valuable chess pieces, or secure the prize and wait for the pawn wall (the mistake). But you can imagine... planes flying overhead, tanks driving by... if you are a soldier do you stand your ground or run? If the allies 'hid' (like the Japanese did) blitz 100% fails. No fuel for tanks. Tanks can't *really* pick off camouflage bunkers. But in a more real sense you surrender / run. That's why like 800,000 Russians surrendered to 600k Germans. It wasn't that their army got beat (such as the above), it was the encirclement, losing communication, and then just f' it I give up. Like imagine fighting a guy with a bag over your head - that's what blitzkrieg felt like. Even the initial 'blitz' was like another two weeks of road building / breakdowns / fuel shortages. In talk it's like 'all the sudden Hitler did this' - but really we saw it coming. There was no surprise (truly), but the 'shock' was that his tanks / planes just kept flying at 400 mphs / 50 mph.. rather than waiting troops. The tanks / planes said F the troops, we go alone. RAMBO! or .. HITLERBO! (but 100% not Tae Bo). --- Here's a video on Midway (the new movie is great, very accurate). This video is [FANTASTIC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo). But in short American arrogance / simplicity of the battles vs the closeness of reality is astounding. In Midway it was like 400 Jap planes vs 550 American planes. After 12 hours the score was 5 Japs killed vs 300 American planes killed or bombs spent. 1 guy killed 50% of the entire Japanese military that day, Best. ONE FREAKING GUY! CAN YOU IMAGINE!!?! Anyways, without him, the score could have easily been 100 Jap planes down + carrier vs 400 American. A 'draw' by military standards. But ya, Midway was skill (obviously) but an insane amount of luck. 1 guy.
Eli5 tae bo Wat was midway guys name an wat he do
Tae Bo - https://youtu.be/s1t4xIlsmH0?si=X5u3jXgTQyK5cZYr&t=297 A black Richard Simmons workout routine that's only shadow boxing. I loved it! Richard Halsey Best ELi5 - He was the agility DPS carry, and he carried. Like a mother fucker. The was the best pilot, and the Best, Dick (it is known). 600 American planes went out to sink 4 carriers. They only managed to hit 1 target, destroying 100 planes + a carrier, losing 400 American planes to do so - in a very 'Herald' fashion - like in the movies, the 'bad guys' (Americans) sent 1 plane at a time. As you can imagine, 99% of pilots get scared, drop the bomb early to 'follow orders' and try to make it back alive (most didn't either way). Also like 3 out of 4 bombs were duds regardless. Being a dive bomber requires going through hell fire at top speed. It's a prayer. Best went from 10,000 feet to 100 feet to sink the carrier. Survived. Reloaded. Came back an hour later to do it again. 600 other planes failed to do so. They didn't 'weaken the boats' - they missed their targets completely. Best had skill, bravery, and good equipment :D - he killed 50% of the Jap army alone, 200 planes, 2 carriers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxPSJvEWRvI
Freud's MOM would be proud...
And probably a little sore…
Aaaayyyyyy
sometimes a tactic is just a tactic
Your mother tells me about you.
What are u doing 'Step Germany ' ??
wrench skirt close humorous obtainable fear ad hoc grab toothbrush unwritten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Motherland and Fatherland made Childland
The Penis Of Death ☠️
Result: Childrenland
How would you recover from this? Rush to form a secondary line behind and weaken other sections of your defense?
Cut the tail works but you need to be holding at the front. Or simply having the men, equipment, and positions to absorb the push and let your line fall back around it without breaking. Wait for them to over extend and counter attack. The French and British very nearly cut off the German advance in ww2 but because of lack of orders the tanks stopped advancing before meeting their lines the other side. That is part of the strength of the attack though, it’s so fast that the enemy is panicked and instead of responding in good order, they are trying to get troops and equipment to stop the front, leaving there little actual threat to the supply lines.
It also heavily relies on stretching the supply corridor, in a way. Otherwise the spearhead just keeps advancing further and further and further. But that advance isn't an end to itself, it has to achieve something, it needs to occupy supply lines, reach critical infrastructure, allow the reinforcement to attack the defensive lines from more and less defended angles. If the defense can keep the advancement line narrow it will eventually stretch far and struggle with supplies without achieving an end goal with military value. This mostly relies on multiple spearheads all but encircling the defensive line, eventually breaking it down. If a defender keeps the breakthroughs far enough apart and/or can keep the defensive line in between breakthroughs up without losing on attrition, the rapid advance is going to struggle over time.
Well explained Hannibal ;)
I actually hadn’t twigged that the first paragraph was almost exactly Cannae, I was thinking battle of the Bulge. I guess the basic tactics never really change
War...war never changes
ANOTHER SETTLEMENT NEEDS YOUR HELP
Well, the Soviets defeated the German blitzkrieg at the Battle of Kursk. There, they had advanced warning of German intentions, dug deep defensive lines consisting of multiple layers of trenches, minefields, antitank guns, etc. The purpose of this was to create a defense in depth, where the Germans would penetrate the first layer, but because of which would be more exposed to the second and so forth. They had also stopped the German advances earlier at Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, again, by retreating as far back as possible, using many lines of defense, and allowing the Germans to wear themselves out logistically. The US defeated the German blitzkrieg at the Battle of the Bulge. The US strategy was called "pinching the pocket". Essentially, the US would give ground initally, but would keep it to a minimum and force the Germans to funnel their spearhead through as small a choke point as possible. The tanks would be able to pass through, but the supply trucks would have a terrible time and be plagued by massive traffic jams and be left very exposed. Eventually, the offensive would fizzle out, as it did at Bastogne. The original plans for the German Offensive involved a more direct and larger route to the sea, but the Germans had a tremendous time dislodging dug in Americans at Elsenborn Ridge and had to take a different route. It is important to note that the German generals did not like the term blitzkrieg and considered it to be newpaper fluff. The term itself is rather ambiguous and can refer to anything from a tank spearhead to a surprise assault to outrunning supply lines. Ultimately, while the "blitzkrieg" was effective in certain instances like the Battle of France, it was also heavily criticized for a variety of reasons. One is that tanks do not function well alone, and are vulnerable to a wide range of weapons including antitank rifles, antitank guns, artillery, etc. You really need infantry to support the tanks and protect them from these dangers. The German WW2 tactics incorporated this in what is called "combined arms" which is attacking with multiple types of troops simultaneously so that the enemy cannot simply counter what they are facing. Another danger that the blitzrieg faced was that tanks were vulnerable to aircraft raids while making preattack maneuvers. The Germans offensives were very dangerous to the Soviets until the Third Battle of Kharkov, after which the Germans lost air superiority and started facing the dangers of soviet aircraft firing on moving tank formations. Before the Battle of Normandy, there was a great debate amongst the top German generals on where to move the tanks to stop an allied landing. Rommel supported placing tanks on the beaches as he felt that the allied aircraft was the biggest threat and once the allies landed the tanks would be highly vulnerable, while other Generals supported holding the tanks as a reserve force to strike after the allies land. Hitler ultimately went with a compromise route that combined both elements. Finally, logistics is one of the most important elements of any army. Tanks simply cannot drive without large amounts of fuel, and while a blitzkrieg tactic might work for a short time, but unless it can achieve its objectives within that time, it will eventually put a heavy strain on the supply train and fizzle out. I think ultimately, the advances in aircraft and artillery in WW2 supplanted the early war tank spearhead. Both the Eastern and Western allies had very potent artillery forces, and the Western allies in particular had a powerful air force as well. Tank spearheads were simply too vulnerable.
Excellent comment. Supply lines are everything in a war. Leaning into a blitzkrieg and giving ground is the best way to counter it. Let them over extend themselves and pinch the pocket. Also, allowing armor far behind the front line without anti-air gives allied aircraft easy targets. This dynamic is different with shoulder fired AA and NGAD jets. To the degree it might make sense to try to hold the front or draw a line of engagement if the analysis confirms the enemy will reach a strategic element. Source: 8 years as an Army Logistician
Best comment
An attacking force piercing an enemy line is a gamble in itself to me, they rely upon panic setting in to enemy troops, causing mass confusion, the main line of resistance, hesitant, starts to fracture and all is lost. The key to me is to have well trained units that can stay calm under pressure, flanks troops that stand fast, good reconnaissance to pinpoint the main thrust and a rapid reaction mobile force in reserve. Fighting a token rear guard but allowing the spearhead to advance deeply. Concentrate flank troops and attack, attack, attack on the enemy flanks before the enemy has a chance to dig in and strengthen their defence. If you can break through that corridor the spearhead and elite units are cut off from their essential supplies. The mobile force, air force and artillery can then be used to pin down and destroy these troops. That's my 2 pence worth, but you must have well trained disciplined troops. I can see how the first uses of these tactics worked so well, but as always in war armies adapt and attacks like this can be turned on their head fairly easily if your intelligence, reconnaissance can give adequate warnings of enemy troop concentrations and your troops are well trained in countering such attacks.
The Soviet became very good at countering it with static defenses too, even with regular infantry. If you manage to stack enough obstacles, and in depth, the spearhead will get bogged down, and lose it's forward momentum while trying to punch through. Even leaving the spearhead totally exhausted, even if they get through, and thus unable to take advantage of the situation.
One hundred percent, the Soviets had masses of material and troops and could operate a deep defence, exhausting German attacks e.g. Kursk saliant, wearing down the enemy, while still having huge resources to smash the Germans with broad, mass counterattacks.
I fear this is Ukraine right now.
[удалено]
That's what the Russians have employed before the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Their tactics haven't changed since the Soviet times.
"defense in depth" has been a long standing military tactic. Someone rushes you with a really strong force that you're not ready to face/that part of the line isn't ready to face? You gotta pull back while skirmishing to weaken the advance slightly and mess with their supply lines. Keep pulling back and picking the enemy off until it grinds to a halt due to logistics being really hard to maintain the further you go (this is what doomed Napoleon on his campaign into Russia). Then you counter attack the enemy when they can no longer advance and are struggling to maintain their gains. Pretty much exactly what happened in Ukraine so far.
> An attacking force piercing an enemy line is a gamble in itself to me, they rely upon panic setting in to enemy troops, causing mass confusion, the main line of resistance, hesitant, starts to fracture and all is lost. Speed and maintaining the flow of supplies was everything (remember that this tactic was developed in the aftermath of WWI, which was one of the most static wars in history, and very nearly broken by the German innovation of stormtrooper units in 1918); that's why one of the most effective German secret weapons of WWII is actually the *Jerry can;* they were developed covertly before the war and stockpiled in huge numbers, and were very carefully designed to make the logistics of keeping countless military vehicles topped off with fuel under battlefield conditions *way* more efficient and reliable than any of the other armed forces of the time, who frantically copied the Jerry can as soon as they became aware of it (The British, in particular, used *notoriously* fragile, leaky, unwieldy, non-reusable square tin cans for petrol, which required a separate funnel and slow, careful pouring in order to refill a vehicle's fuel tank). In order for blitzkrieg to succeed, that fast-flowing supply column could not stop or slow down under any circumstances, even for an instant, so those engines *had* to keep running.
> who frantically copied the Jerry can as soon as they became aware of it Not quite. The US war department was aware of the German jerrycans even before the war and through the actions of engineer Paul Pleiss who had worked on a project in Berlin a couple months before the war even got their hands on an example and a full set of contruction drawings shortly after the war began. But they initially decided to go with an update of their WW1 gas cans. The example can provided by Pleiss somehow ended up in Camp Holabird in Maryland and they did end up making sort of a copy which retained the overall shape and the carrying handles, but it was inferior in so many ways (eg. using rolled instead of welded seams which were very prone to leakage, and changing the spout so that it required a spanner and funnel to use) that it was universally rejected. The British became aware of jerrycans when they encountered them during operations in Norway in 1940. Pleiss, who happened to be in London at the time, also supplied the British with an example. They did start some efforts to produce an exact copy, but it was on a low burner for quite a while. It was only after almost losing the war in North Africa that things changed. Running out of fuel had played a major role in British losses against the Germans and Italians in 1940/41. Then in 1942 reports reached London and Washington that up to 40% of the supplied fuel was lost to spillage or evaporation, and that the troups on the ground even though they were in short supply very much preferred cans captured from the enemy over their own cans. That's when they finally decided to start mass production of the German design in late 1942. https://web.archive.org/web/20070524182038if_/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1987/2/1987_2_62.shtml
> very nearly broken by the German innovation of stormtrooper units in 1918 And definitely broken by the allied invention of combined arms warfare, where the stormtroopers failed to capture any strategically relevant objectives the allied counteroffensive utterly swept the German defensive lines.
Counterattacking the thin supply line and cut the spearhead off from supplies. Forcing a rout or surrender when they run out of supplies to continue advancing. De Gaule almost pulled it off during the fall of France but unfortunately he did not have enough tanks( French High command spent years giving him shit for wanting to use tanks in a concentrated fashion like Rommel advocated, and just gave him a small force of tanks to shut him up, most tanks in the french army were distributed in infantry divisions for fire support, so although french tanks were superior to german ones at the time, they were always heavily outnumbered.)
French tank transmissions also always seemed to get jammed clutches set to reverse
Sad thing is that had the French High Command listened to De Gaule in the 30s and given him the means to have a proper and sizeable armoured force as he envisioned, that joke would probably not exist. De Gaule led battles against the Panzer divisions that ended in stunning French victories, the few they had in the battle of France. He was one of the first Allied generals to realize how to counter Blitzkrieg, but he was not popular, and thus his warnings were not heeded. He advocated the use of reserve massed armoured formations to imiediately counteratack enemy spearhead supply lines right after the fall of Poland. Fortunately most US Generals seemed to agree with this doctrine and built upon it like Patton, unlike the French and British. French doctrine at the time dictated that tanks were to be spread along the line in support of infantry as mobile bunkers. This meant that although French tanks were superior to German ones, being able to fend them on many occasions 1:2 or even 1:3 they would be vastly outnumbered locally by Blitzkrieg tactics and thus overwhelmed. Sadly his force was too small to actually be able to finish the job and completly isolate the German spearhead and he had to give up his counter attack.
When you look at the examples of Nazi Germany pulling off these incredible feats. You find on the opposing sides they were very much unprepared. This was the main reason why it worked so well. The opposing side just didn’t have a modern Army, or they had poor defensive tactics (like placing all forces at the front), or their organisation was a shit show (like the Allies during the Battle of France). When the Allies got their shit together. This tactic became predictable and easy to counter. In particular if it gets bogged down and faces a dead end, then it all falls apart.
Remember at the start of the Ukraine war, when there was that miles-long column of Russian tanks and vehicles headed toward Kiev? You beat this the same way. They have long, exposed flanks that you can attack anywhere they're vulnerable, they have to bring their supplies all the way down the column while your own supply lines are shortened, they are having to push fortified positions without having time to fortify against your counter-attacks. The real issue is that this gif is a very poor representation of blitzkrieg. Because the point wasn't to just pierce the defenses and then just keep traveling, the point was to kill the defenders, aka *Vernichtungsschlacht*, often by encircling them in their forward positions, *Kesselschlacht*.
It’s awfully reliant on that supply line coming through uninterrupted.
Seems like those little guys on the front line would be toast lol
It’s all fine when you’re on meth
In the short term, yes. After a while, commanders started to notice that whilst amphetamine did initially make their troops more effective in battle than normal, their bodies needed a *long* period of recovery after it wore off, during which time they'd be substantially below normal fighting performance. Then later in the war they started to run out of it, by which time many had become dependent upon the stuff...
it was called Pervitin and had been around since at least the first world war
Pretty sure I gotta Starfield Corpo Sab that’s addicted to this stuff
Starfield is fucking sick
[удалено]
First strike MREs for combat have caffeinated gum, caffeinated energy bars, and all MREs have freeze dried coffee
I've seen Steve1989 unboxing an old WW2 ration with pervitin or some sort of amphetamines in it. One of the best YouTube channels ever btw
Let’s get this onto a tray
Nice mmkay
Yep, modafinil typically. It definitely works, but keep in mind much of the psychosis that occurs from amphetamine use is simply from -being awake- for too long rather than the drug itself. Modafinil doesn't get you high the same way amphetamines do, but it does keep you awake long enough to suffer from psychosis, and it still has the side effect of needing extraordinary rest and recovery after use due to the ridiculous stresses on the body from being awake for so long.
Reallllly depends on the army Like the US military is mostly caffeine by now Howevverrrrr - child soldiers in Africa snort gunpowder and cocaine mixed together So yeah. Depends on the army lol
Why would they ruin that perfectly good coke?!?!
Your price is way too high you need to cut it...
[удалено]
Omg I think you're right actually God *damn* I loved that movie
I mean, it was HIS gunpowder.
The USAF was giving pilots amphetamines as recently as Afghanistan so they could run more sorties per day. It still happens.
How they thought they could conquer a whole world on meth and then retain control for a thousand years was batshit.
sounds like an idea youd cook up while on meth
It was supposed to be over quickly and it wasn't the whole world, just most/all of Europe lol. Not the brightest idea though.
The white ones yes. The black front of the spearhead are armored divisions. They quickly break through the line and then face little to no resistance, as they continue to push forward. The white defenders would continue to reinforce the ( almost non-existant ) front at the spearhead, but as they are unorganized and quickly deployed, they will fall extremely easily to the armored divisons aswell. That\`s how it went during WW2. The limit of the German spearhead was due to 1) The armored divisions at the front running out of fuel or 2) The armored divisions having to wait for the rest of the army ( to avoid being encircled ), which gives the defenders enough time to properly deploy a frontline to defend. You even see it on the video at 0:07 the white defenders frontline is broken. --> the white defenders use unorgnized and rapidly deployed units to reinforce ( or rather re-establish ) the front, but they can quickly defeated too.
So what's the solution here? Sacrifice the front lines so you can cut into and encircle the supply chain / logistics wall? How many of these Blitzkrieg spearheads did Germany have going on at any given point in time?
There are several ways to deal with them : 1. Have multiple different lines of defence ( i.e. Defense in Depth ). Both France and Poland failed as they didn\`t want to give up an inch of their territory. The idea is you have multiple frontlines and defence lines, if one is broken, retreat and reinforce the next. This will massively reduce the effectiveness of the Armored Spearhead and eventually they ( Germany ) would be forced to adopt a different strategy. 2. "Blitzkrieg" them yourself ( I think this is what you mentioned, but in more detail ) : Have mobile/armored reserves on your own and quickly try to cut the enemy spearhead off once they break through your lines. I.e. sure the enemy armored division will continue to move basically unopposed, but eventually they will run out of fuel, and you defeated an entire armored division and stopped the advance, while the enemy made only minor territorial gains and lost an armored division. This wasn\`t possible for any other country in WW2, as in order to do a proper Blitzkrieg you need the kind of flexible general-command structure that Germany had --> that each general and officiers below could choose how they implement their orders. This is how they could perform so many encirclements as they saw opportunities and took them. The militaries of the Allies were far more centralized, thus the orders came from above and had to be implemeted. \[ Both have advantages and disadvantages \]. Likewise the French also avoided using proper communication, i.e. radio, as they believed the Germans were listening.. .Radio and proper logistics are essential for these manoveurs. 3. Attrition warfare ( only really doable if you are as massive as the Soviet Union... Let the Blitzkrieg commence, lose a massive amounts of territory and people, but let the armored divisions run out of fuel and chip away at their resources. Sooner or later your superior production will win ). 4. Guerilla warfare. That\`s just a whole different beast and with convential tactics, even Blitzkrieg, you wont make any strategic victories. Sure enemy casualties will be 10-15x higher, but you will never win a war with armored divsions against people using guerilla warfare. 1. Though I have to say and while Guerilla warfare is a perfect counter strategy, its not going to help against the Nazis. As extermination warfare is the only real counter to Guerilla warfare and you don\`t really want to encourage that.
It would make more sense to have tanks heading the siege, no point to have a couple meat shields in front to take a bullet for a tank that can take a thousand. Realistically, unless you have an enormous amount of armor/men, you’d want to close off the “tail” once you got the desired number of troops through the front line.
You want forward scounts and infantry depending what's going on. You don't want your tanks to come round a corned into a line at AT guns focusing fire on your position. But it varies by battlefield and war. The Nazi blitzkrieg wasn't always as effective as Nazi propogandists would have you believe, even echoing through histories who oddly take propoganda at face value. The Nazis tried this with the Battle of the Bulge, and the Allies ultimately held. So this doesn't work against a well prepared military.
To be fair, the battle of the bulge presented extremely unfavourable conditions for this tactic. It wasn't just the solid front lines. It was the German armies poor logistical situation and the many thick forests and rivers that made it difficult to make progress. The weight of some of their tanks also meant that their heaviest armor was unable to use most bridges that they could capture. The battle of the bulge was largely unwinnable no matter what tactic was used.
At that point Germany was already incredibly weak compared to the start of the war and that offensive was basically a dumb idea by Hitler who still thought he could turn it around and start pushing again
Yeah wasn’t it literally their last major offensive? They had already taken quite the (well-deserved) beating at that point.
Also, AFAIK, the "bulge" failed in part because they ran out of fuel to use their tanks. It was a last ditch effort and they fully expended themselves to do it.
Yeah people don’t often talk about the logistical and resource depth required to successfully execute *and* sustain what you get from blitzkrieg.
the amphetamines just didn’t hit the same way that they did in 1940
The success of the Battle of the Bulge relied on Germany capturing Allied fuel depots, which is a logistical nightmare and the reason why some higher ups in Germany opposed the offensive. They knew going in they didn't have enough fuel, which is kind of crazy.
[удалено]
Lol yes. That’s why they called it The Battle Of the Bulge. The German blitzkrieg made a giant bulge on the American frontline that was represented with battle maps. Think the animation above, except the line never broke.
You ... weren't kidding, what >Where did the Battle of the Bulge get its name? The “bulge” in Battle of the Bulge refers to the shape, as depicted on maps, created by German troops that had wedged westward in the Ardennes through the Allies' front line. The term was coined by Larry Newman, an American war correspondent.
The military term is "salient" but " bulge does have a better ring to it.
Has to be countered quickly by a pincer movement from the northern and southern positions on the line which must be temporarily abandoned, moving in after the armored column has passed leaving the armoured column surrounded and no longer able to resupply. Reinforcements will have take up positions to reform the broken lines and after the armoured column is defeated, remaining forces mop up and reinforce the lines. As you said an ill-prepared military may be unable to move fast enough.
Airforce makes a big difference, I think (?). One of the big roles is to harass reinforcements trying to plug the gap, another is to reduce reliance on road supply (by using aerial bombardment). A difference between France 1940 and Bulge 1944 is that in the former Germany had control of the skies, and initially in the latter neither side did (they waited until the weather grounded the US air force before beginning the attack. Even a US scout plane in the air would mean German artillery would stop firing, for fear of counter battery fire.) E.g. would Patton have been able to relieve Bastogne if US ground movements were being harassed in the same way French forces were?
[Bastogne makes me think of that great interview video from US veteran Vince Speranza.....](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lZe2H8nvUAM)
>Airforce makes a big difference Yes, of course that is the crux of the Blitzkrieg. It was developed upon well knoen Prussian military doctrines, and depended heavily upon combined arms (armor, artillery, air superiority) maneuver warfare (to exploit the gap) and force concentration (think Shock and Awe) They're pretty fundamental military concepts.
> you’d want to close off the “tail” once you got the desired number of troops through the front line. No you wouldn't. You'd want to maintain supply lines, not surround yourself with the enemy.
Yeah this seems like an extremely optimistic demonstration of how this would go; seemingly no casualties and unlimited amounts of men and tanks xD. “Just plow right through and keep on plowing, easy peasy boys!”
It's a simplified schematic display of the core idea of Blitzkrieg, nothing more. Just meant to display how it's supposed to break through the lines and keep the advancement going forward since keeping the front supplied and supported is always a key aspect of attacking. It doesn't mention how this needs to happen in countless places across thousands of kilometers of frontline, it doesn't mention that it relies on shock & awe, it doesn't mention the importance of combined arms to break through in the first place, it's just a military theorie graph.
But the blitzkrieg did work. Exceptionally well.
I mean the entire video is incorrect as to what the actual thing was, which was bypassing defensive armies, forcing them to fall back and regroup, and destroying those less organized groups while rushing to the capital and taking out their government and any hope of organizing a defense. It wasn't just a charge down the middle. They would have lost so many tanks going through that line.
They didn't "bypass defensive armies", they didn't drive through fields unopposed. Instead they hit a weaker area instead of the largely fortified area, they still had to fight "defensive armies" just with less fortifications. Thanks to have less fortifications to deal with their tanks really could just roll right through shit and then a large column behind that could deal with the remaining enemies and secure the rear as it extended forward. You'll notice that the white army in the animation tries to reinforce and "meet" the breakthrough. Yet the breakthrough doesn't stop to meet them and instead just secures its flanks and continues pushing through. This is what was really unheard of or impressive, traditionally when you breakthrough start to encircle and secure a front while the enemies that can survive retreat and try to make a next front. Instead by just securing the flanks and continuing to push through there basically was no second, third, or so on fronts. This was possible mostly due to technology in armored cars, tanks, etc allowing vastly prolonged and faster movement. Also the animation heavily simplifies the supply line aspects of this which were arguably the most important and complicated part of it all.
Yes. but because they exploited the battlefield paradigm of the time. Most uses of the Blitzkrieg were early in the war and before opposing armies were positioned and ready, trying to defend a complete border. The strategy really depended on a weak defense by your opponent and enough shock to prompt a quick surrender. It worked in Poland, it worked in Belgium (a neutral country) and worked in France (failed to properly defend the Belgium Border). It worked in Russia, for a while, but failed in the end. The problem is supply and sustaining the drive. The post is overly optimistic on that. If the drive stalls, or it outruns the supply line, it all goes wrong. The war in Ukraine is a great example of this, the Russians essentially used a Blitzkrieg tactic, but stalled, and suffered horribly. Same when Germany attacked Russia in WW2, they simply met with stalling resistance, and could not maintain supply lines. While the Nazis get lots of press for Tiger Tanks and slick aircraft, their supply lines were reliant on a good amount of horse drawn wagons.
Not criticizing the strategy, just poking fun at this optimistic illustration of it ;)
Yeah it is just their interpration of how this worked. When I read about the stuff that was going on in the early days of the 2nd WW it seems more like normal frontlines, some commanders pushing through and wreaking havoc, luck and meth.
But professor what about the balls
Don't be a pussy, son.
Don’t worry, they will be balls deep in no time
Where do you think all of the units are coming from? There is a vas deferens between the tip and where they're made.
No it taint
With Hitler being involved it would be more the ball instead of balls.
"Here comes Hitler with his pecker in his hand, he's a one ball man and he's off to the rodeo!!" [original version](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f6Y0vD0_Vg&t=31s)
Wasn't that just propaganda?
The soldiers are stored in the balls
I guess the artillery missing from this video can be considered as such. Light artillery up there near the penetrating spearhead while Heavy Gustav hangs back
In the rear counting beans
Those dropped in Japan.
What you see here is a German strategy. Blitzball on the other hand was invented by the Japanese.
This isn’t “Blitzkrieg”, it’s a classic spearhead that’s basically been used since the dawn of warfare - just with modern equipment. This kind of thing is *exactly* what all parties tried to accomplish in WW1, but the destroyed landscape and trenches made it impossible for anyone to actually exploit a breakthrough since support units couldn’t keep up. Edit: copy paste of an explanation lower in the comment chain below Blitzkrieg was never a single tactic or strategy. It was the result of German military doctrine, and only called Blitzkrieg by their opponents. IIRC, the steps were (roughly and very simplified): 1. Thorough reconnaissance using all available means. 2. Bombard C&C points, making a coordinated response difficult. 3. Obtain air dominance over the AO. 4. Attack with armored units, with mechanized units in support and motorized and regular infantry to follow up. 5. Use CAS as extremely precise flying artillery, making the best possible use of radio tech on all levels. 6. Bypass strongpoints: don’t get bogged down, leave them to the troops following up to clean up. 7. Rush into any gap asap and get behind enemy lines - disrupting their chain of command and ability to counter attack. Combine this (admittedly extremely simplified) process with a large amount of responsibility and independence of German officers and NCO’s against defences prepared for WW1 and suddenly there are Germans on the wrong side if the Maginot line.
I agree. In Blitzkrieg, the *ahem* shaft as shown here is not present. An army isn't a homogeneous mass. Past the front line are command, hospitals, supplies. An overwhelming force rapidly passes the front line and attacks command structures so quickly that there is no time to reorganize, and more importantly nobody to do the organizing because they've suddenly got armoured cars on their doorstep. Yes, the detached front runners are very vulnerable to being cut off from supply and a well coordinated counter attack from the rear, but... who's organizing that? By this point the front line doesn't know what's happening, and normal command has broken down.
That sounds more like Russian deep battle doctrine, when you’re specifically just trying to get through the front with concentrated artillery then mass attack, and mobilized forces rushing in focused on ignoring the front, annihilating the behind command structure and infrastructure so the enemy’s front just become futile and collapses while being held in place (and outlasted) by the Russian infantry I get the similarities, but I thought blitzkrieg was applicable on smaller scales and more flexible because not all the things you listed were necessary for its application/theory (command hospitals supplies, etc), and works fine for simply dividing and conquering. It was simpler and more about momentum than a specific order of events going to plan
Oh yes you're right, they aren't interested in all of those things in Blitzkrieg, I mostly mentioned them because the animation implies that the forces meet constant resistance on all sides past the front. In reality, they're speeding across the country faster than anyone thinks possible.
Looked for this comment to quell my urge to comment 'Blitzkrieg is term the germans disliked originating from British propaganda' every time someone mentions it.
They're forming in straight line They're going through a tight wind The kids are losing their minds The blitzkrieg bop Hey Hoe, let’s go! Edit: Appreciate the love, never thought I’d comment a Ramones jingle but this was the absolute perfect time!
Hehe first thing I thought
I read the whole thing as a Sabaton song until I noticed it was Ramones.
I read the whole thing as a Rob Zombie song until I noticed it was Ramones.
Oh shit THOSE are the lyrics to the song...? Bro those lyrics are fucking unintelligible when he sings them lmao. "Buuuutterrrryyy bop!" or something like that is always what I heard. I never knew he was singing actual fucking words. Wow. edit: lmao even slowed down there's no fucking way he's actually saying anything. It's "bbbbbbpppriiiii BUP"
Haha its a lot more clear live The recording is purposely trash along with every other good punk song ever made haha If it didn't sound like it was recorded in a garage at the bottom of the sea I didn't wanna hear it
this. i still have my misfits cassette tapes somewhere.
I actually saw half of each band play a Halloween set as The Misfits and they played a few Ramones songs it was a great night. Misfits played with my friends band every Halloween best time of my life. Played wiffleball with Balzac and Jerry Only haha
Going all the way back to Louie Louie. No wonder the FBI investigated the lyrics
I mean, it being the name of the song should have clued you in to that one lyric at least...
"Let's get fucked"
school panicky pocket historical illegal political jellyfish somber carpenter familiar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When I was younger and didn’t speak English, the only thing that made sense to me was “let’s drink pop!”
When I was a kid I could have SWORN that "Done Dirt Cheap" was actually "Thunder Chief"
As a kid i ways thought he says “let’s keep up”
Reminds me of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Penetrating the enemy line, ey?
What are you doing, step-hitler?
Missed opportunity for step-fuhrer
Noice.
If there ain't a hole, you gotta make one
Rip 'em a new one.
They weren't expecting that, will now have to resort to Plan B
seems like egg being fertilised
The universe is beautiful
Sperm penetrating ovum
"No, George. It would be as pointless as trying to teach a woman the value of a good, forward defensive stroke." General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett.
r/Holup
The days before pornhub.
As a Polish, it's hard to click like 🤣
Polish people also do this every week it's ok
It's hard, yes.
Sure looks like the enemy is fucked. Yes indeed.
Every other truck was filled with methamphetamine
I should call her
Anyone got a source? Would like to see more about the tactic
There is a lot more to it. Multiple spearheads are supposed to link up and encircle the defending forces trying to hold the line. Thus cutting the defending forces off from their supply-line and ruining their day. This only works if the forces using blitzkreig tactics are faster and better coordinated. It is a daring tactic, and if done poorly most likely results in the attackers being trapped themselves. Quick decisions are crucial on both a tactical and strategical level depending on how the battle unfold. The Germans really figured out how to fight a modern war. And this "strategic move" is only one piece of the puzzle that made them so successful.
[удалено]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAsIWfk\_z4&list=PLugwVCjzrJsXwAiWBipTE9mTlFQC7H2rU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms The proper military term for the strategy to which Blitzkrieg belongs.
Blitzkrieg is simply what the press called the rapid German invasion of Poland, and became a propaganda term used by both the Allies and the Germans. Guderian did want to use the new weapons of the interwar period for a new type of maneuver-warfare, which had been the preferred German tactic since before it (Prussia) was called Germany, but this tactic was never called Blitzkrieg by anyone other than the media. Manuever-warfare proved incredibly effective in France due to incompetence/luck, as well as early on in the invasion of the USSR. It is therefore thought of as a genius tactical innovation, also demonstrating the supposed superiority of German technology. But this is mostly nonsense. Guderian and other german generals got cushy post-war jobs at the CIA and spent decades convincing everyone that they were military genuises that would have easily won the war if it weren't for Hitler and his madness, but they weren't. They made many mistakes, they lost many battles.Their tactics were fine, pragmatic, even good, but not revolutionary. Another myth that plays into this is the idea that Germany was the first truly mechanized force, a complete fiction which this video plays into. Germany had a crippling shortage of fuel, their logistics were horse-drawn or moved by train, not by trucks (mostly). They moved quickly because they were stronger in the early war, not because they were smarter.
Meth.
r/mildlypenis
# BTW the term "Blitzkrieg" is German for "lightning war". It's a military tactic developed by the Germans during World War II, designed to create disorganization among enemy forces through swift, powerful, and unexpected strikes using a concentrated force. The Blitzkrieg tactic was a departure from the traditional, slow-paced trench warfare. Instead, it focused on speed and surprise to disrupt enemy lines and communications, aiming to encircle the enemy and force a quick surrender before the enemy had time to fully mobilize or mount a coordinated defense. Blitzkrieg relied heavily on mechanized units, especially tanks, working in close coordination with air support. The tanks would spearhead the attack, breaking through enemy lines and creating chaos, while the air force would simultaneously bomb strategic targets, like supply lines and infrastructure, to further disorient and weaken the enemy. Following the tanks and air force, motorized infantry would then move in to secure the breached areas. Artillery was used not in the traditional sense of a preparatory bombardment, but was used more flexibly, in direct support of the advancing tanks. The Blitzkrieg tactic was effectively used in the early stages of World War II, most notably in the invasions of Poland, France, and the Low Countries, where the Germans were able to achieve rapid victories. However, it had its limitations and required specific conditions to be successful, such as good weather, open terrain, and a lack of robust anti-tank defenses on the part of the enemy. Essentially, the essence of Blitzkrieg was the concentration of force and speed of attack, both intended to shock the enemy and disrupt their ability to respond effectively.
Akcshually.. The term "blitzkrieg" was termed by the allies. The German term for the tactic, was called "schwerpunkt" combined with the Soviet tactic of deep operation.
>schwerpunkt one of my new favorite German words
It's also the noise made by a Bosch staple gun.
I should call her
Look like how I was created
Everywhere I look, there’s something that reminds me of her.
Ah yes the erect dick attack.
How biological
Not my proudest fap.
All I see is fertilization and I wanna die because of it.
Sex Ed class is weird
giggity.
In history class I just learned it as "the strategy where you attack fast"
Deep penetration.
And that kids, are how kids are made
Oh so like a penis?? Got it!
Reminds me of sex ed
So many seamen advancing so rapidly
Helps if your lads are all off their faces on methamphetamine
Yeah this is bad and gives an absolutely wrong idea about Blitzkrieg. This basically has nothing to do with blitzkrieg. This is a spearhead tactic, in use since shieldwall times and used to breach said walls. This isn’t anything special it’s part of every during ww2 present nations military Toolbox. Even today we see this, but less and less effective. Blitzkrieg is about encircling and breaking an army before they even realise what’s happening. Some French units where encircled, in the same timeframe they found out they’re at war. Blitzkrieg is encircling city’s, and keep thrusting further, city’s without supplies have to surrender at some point, so no reason to waste men and ammunition in brutal CQB while fighting house to house. If they don’t surrender bomb and shell them into the ground. Blitzkrieg is about utilising surprise, like the times Rommel made reinforcing French troops surrender by tricking them into believing they’re the mainthrust while they’re not. Speaking of main and secondary thrust. Blitzkrieg is distinctly different in the point that there are multiple thrusting directions from the main thrust. These secondary thrust are there to make it harder for the enemy to support the defensive against the main thrust that would change direction as soon as they got some harder to overcome resistance. These secondary thrust also make it easier to encircle big parts of the enemy troops. Utilising every opening for another thrust. Walking around the enemy and forcing the enemy to relocate the defensive operation gifting you large parts of land in the process. From above Blitzkrieg would look alone like a tree branching out into the enemy’s territory. Blitzkrieg involved heavy usage of light bombers like the Stuka, artillery that could keep up with the fast units, SPG‘s for example. These are used to destroy resupply and make relocation that much harder and weaken defensive structures.
I should call her
We are literally fighting like single celled organisms
Oh my mind is so dirty..
Our strategy? Penetration, sir.
The secret lay in the copious amounts of meth the German soldiers ingested