Talk:Blitzkrieg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Main Page Picture

Do you think the first picture in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PanzerInfantryAdvance.jpg) would be a more interesting picture to use on the main page for this featured article then the current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pzkpfwiausfa.jpg). Just my opinon.

Old talk

Remove reference to shock and awe and effects based warfare. They are sufficiently different from blitzkrieg not to be lumped together.

Roadrunner 15:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have repositioned and change the caption text of jagdtiger. It is obvious that jagdtiger concept was totally opposed to Blitzkrieg needs, and actually it was an answer to the lasts years of war needings.

Any way, if the way of changing this reference is not correct, I would like to apologize. I don't want to be rude in any way.

Poliorcetes 27 Sep 2005

John Monash

I have read in a number of places that John Monash in WWI opted for co-ordinated armour and infantry instead of Haig's attritional tactics. The battle of Hamel Hill is a famous example. Also the Battle of Amiens. Furthermore I have read that the Germans based blitzkrieg on the successes of the Australians late in WWI in France. Some have argued that it wasn't invented by Monash, but it was clearly implemented very well by him and should at least be mentioned.Roonz123 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you have any particular Australian successes in mind or any specific books/sources making the link to the post-WW1 German doctrinal rethink ? Combined arms, as i am sure you will agree, is a long way from 'Blitzkreig'. What evidence is there that Monash's success was down to a 'blitzkreig', i have been unable to find any tactical details of 'Hamel Hill'. Facius 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Precursor section

I'm considering removing or editing the section on the Precursor to Blitzkrieg. Von Moltke's and Schlieffen's plans did not call for a direct strike into Paris. Rather, they planned on battles of annihilation where the opposing army would be surrounded and destroyed, thus leaving the way to Paris or whatever strategically vital point open. This is what happened in the Frano-Prussian war. The German army surrounded and destroyed/bottled up the French armies at Metz and Sedan, then they went for Paris. Therefore, the section about the German army aiming straight for Paris is incorrect.

Also, the term Blitzkrieg was not of German origin. They did not actually start using that term until people outside of Germany did. The Germany tactics in WWII were battles of annihilation aided by mechanization. It was a mix of old and new. Guderian's theories were never actually practiced in their purest forms.

Not too worried about the term. It's current now, so we can use it. But weren't WWI Sturmtrupen tactics a major precursor? The storm-troopers would drive forward as far as possible, bypassing pockets of resistence and cutting deep into lightly-defended rear areas, as I understand. Also, re Liddel Hart, the greatest effect of the attack on the French was that it froze their high command, and they stopped fighting back when they were still, technically, about as strong as the Germans.

Comatose51

Remove section on the meaning of Blitz in German. They are possibly irrelevant and certainly not totally correct. "Blitzsauber", for instance, does not mean extraordinarily clean, it means "sparkling clean" (from the German verb "blitzen", to sparkle, to twinkle). Most German compounds containing "Blitz" seem to stress the "lightning fast" aspect of lightning, e.g. "blitzschnell", "Blitzeis", and of course "Blitzkrieg".

I reverted the following:

Ironically, a French general was the first to suggest Blitzkrieg-style tactics, in which afterwards the Germans adopted and used against them in WWII

Please indicate the name of the French general, then this is a meaningful addition. RickK 23:19, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I believe he is (correctly) speaking of Charles De Gaulle. →Raul654 23:24, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I find it difficult to establish the sources for this belief since the 1923 review by the German General staff had these tactics in hand before it would seem that de Gaulle could have had the necessary experiences to make this statement. He may have made the statement but it is the qualification of 'first' that i doubt, unless you mean outside of the German Army. Facius 10:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I am inclined to leave out the part about De Gaulle and the French general as an inspiration because:

• 1 The type of warfare actually practiced by the Germans resembled the pocket battles and battles of annihilation. These tactics have been used through out history such as Cannae. The modern form of this largely due to Von Moltke who broke away from the use of columns which was made famous by Napoleon. Thus, the type of warfare actually practiced by the Germans in WWII was mostly of German origins.
• 2 In the English edition of Guderian's, the father of German Blitzkreig theories, book he acknowledges B.H. Liddell Hart as the inspiration. More importantly, both Fuller and Hart predates the works of de Gaulle.

Therefore, I do not think that statement is really accurate. It is sensationalist but not accurate.

Comatose51 10:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I think this page is due for some overhaul. The article tends to lump together manuver warfare with Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg is a subset of manuver warfare, which has been practice throughout history. The term Blitzrkieg is used to describe a type of warfare whereby the attacker avoids fortifications and strong-points and goes for the enemies' command infrastructures and other strategic locations. The infiltration tactics of the German stormtroopers can be throught of as a predecessor to Blitzkrieg. I think there is a great deal of confusion brought on by the word Blitzkrieg whereby any type of offensive that is fast is considered Blitzkrieg. This is not true. The German offensive of the Franco-Prussian war was relatively fast. Yet, this is not considered Blitzkrieg. Also, other than the infiltration tactics of WWI, there were no elements of Blitzkrieg in WWI. Blitzkrieg was in fact developed in response to the static/positional warfare of WWI. The elements of Blitzkrieg did not start to appear until very late in the war and was used on a massive scale during the final German offensive, Michael. Even during WWII, the early German tactics were not Blitzkrieg. The part about Blitzkrieg being practiced in Poland is simply wrong. It was a battle of annihilation whereby the Polish forces were surrounded and destroy. Blitzkrieg is not the same as these pocket battles. In fact, pocket battles run counter to Blitzkrieg because it requires the army to stay around to annihilate the surrounded enemy, thus losing it momentum. This is sometimes considered one of the reasons why the Germans failed to achieve victory early in the Russian campaign. While some German generals favored heading for Moscow as quickly as possible to disrupt Russian communications, they were often held back by Hitler in order to secure their flanks and destroy surrounded enemies. Comatose51 07:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While obviously blitzkrieg did not exist before IIWW, it did had some precursors - neither Guderian nor Fuller and Hart he based much of his ideas on invented this concept out of thin air. Blitzkrieg is simply a logical extension of earlier tactics (especially cavalry) made possible by unique tank qualities (high resistance to infantry and other early weapons/tactics). Thus end of pure, Guderian-like blitzkrieg was spelled by the development of efficient, infantry-portable anti-tank equipment (among other things, of course, I am not saying it was the only factor. Counter tactics and extensive use of tanks by other side also had a major impact here). I'd appreciate more info on why Blitzkrieg is a late war tactic though - I was under the impression it was used in the Polish-September Campaign, and became less effective in mid-late war after Operation Barbarossa, not the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading v. Manstein's war memoirs on the Poland and France periods discussed here and he says (p61/62) "Before long the Polish campaign was being described as the blitzkreig - 'the lightning war'. Indeed, as far as its speed of execution and the outcome were concerned, it did constitute something almost unique until the German offensive in the west produced a similar development on an even bigger scale." This suggests to me that he sees the two as very similar in doctrinal terms and that our statement that Poland wasnt blitzkreig may warrant re-examination. Facius 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg != war of maneuver

I see that someone has again added sections saying that Blitzkrieg is similar to "older" styles of warfare. This is not correct. Blitzkrieg is not simply a war of maneuver. War of maneuver has certainly been on the books for most of history, but the idea of deliberately attacking the rear areas in order to cut logistics and C3I lines could not exist in the past because there was no logisics or C3I.

I've changed the history section to try to make this clear.

Suggest you might find a read of Napoleon's campaigns in Italy that made his name really interesting. From then on this was one of his principles of warfare. Agree with your initial point but to say there were no logistics and C3I is a mite curious. Facius 10:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This style and principle of warfare predates Napoleon. Look to Frederick the Great for examples.

I would suggest that Dr. Robert Citino's work, "The German Way of War" be consulted in reference to this article. Aside from reducing the term "blitzkrieg" (which the Germans themselves never used, and was coined by American magazines), they prefered to use the term "bewegungskrieg", or "war of movement". This perfectly describes the type of tactics employed by the German army during the Second World War.

I second the previous comment, and would like to point out that "bewegungskrieg" was directly linked to "older" styles of warfare in the Prussian tradition. Even though German tactics emphasized penetration into the rear areas of an enemy position, on an operational level this was part of the overall "kesselschlacht" that was the primary goal of German planning. This had roots in the characteristic flanking maneuvers of Frederick the Great, Clausewitz, Moltke the Elder and von Schliefen.

I too have heard that the Germans never used the term Blitzkrieg themselves. Perhaps someone with the ability to cite a reference on this should add it to the article? (It seems important enough to me.) Historian932 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate changes

During 1936-37 Guderian wrote the book Achtung! Panzer! (Attention! Tank!) detailing the German armored force and his concepts. Other German military theorists supporting Guderian were Oswald Lutz, a colleague of Guderian's and commander of pre-war motor troop posts and Ludwig Ritter von Eimannsberger, author of Der Kampfwagenkrieg.

Oswald Lutz was not a theorist per say. Eimannsberger was not German and Guderian doesn't mention him--his work merely predates theirs, and it was presented as such in Notable persons. 119 22:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guderian would become the most famous of the so-called "panzer generals" during the Second World War, commanding the unit nicknamed Panzergruppe Guderian. Others German famous panzer commanders would include: Erwin Rommel, commander of Deutsches Afrikakorps, Hermann Hoth, commander of the 4th Panzer Army and Sepp Dietrich, commander of Sixth SS Panzer Army during the Battle of the Bulge.

Panzergruppe Guderian was not a nickname. It was a formal designation. Guderian was hardly the most famous. Where did you get that from? 119 22:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL. You yourself added that information, see history :) Now if you have found better info, by all means correct this and I am all for moving it to a better fitting section - but *deleting* information is rarely a good addition. Didn't we had this argument already? Also, please tell me why do you consider the section 'Precusors', still visible in this old edit usless and deleted it without any info in talk? Note I read the above discussion and replied there - you didn't bother to. Actually, you seem to have removed some other useful info as well - for example, the 'Successors' section and the first paragraph of the 'Problems with Blitzkrieg' section (which accidentally I partially brought back to 'Tactics' section thinking it is new info...) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the correct information; you must have made a mistake... "So-called "panzer generals" include: Heinz Guderian, Panzergruppe Guderian and others;..." That is factual; he led a formation formally named Panzergruppe Guderian, and he was not the most famous. [1]

I see no point in fighting over factual thingy, it is much simpler to change the sentence (your own sentence...). As for fame...how so? Give me a source that sais he is not the msot famous. But I can concede to calling him 'one of the most famous'. Little diffrence, much less hassle. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In no source can I find the American Civil War credited as a factor in blitzkrieg. Among military authors blitzkrieg is not understood to mean any kind of sudden war, as you added to the article, but rather the mobile operations that Germany did/tried to conduct during the Second World War. Most broader concepts or histories belong in Maneuver warfare. This includes the maneuver theories of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States (including Patton) where they do not directly impact on Germany's execution of blitzkrieg. However, German actions from the time of Frederick the Great and infiltration tactics should eventually be mentioned for the context of German reliance on mobility and small-unit actions.

Well, I know little about ACW and I am not going to defend the entire Prelude. I will be satisfied with mention of maneuver warfare and two-three pre-IIWW examples you deem right here, AND addition of all ilinks removed from this article to Man.war or some other article you deem is right for them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Successors, that information was not accurate. If you can write it, go ahead. Blitzkrieg's influence is very debateable; post-war, the Soviet Union continued with their Deep Operation doctrine, and NATO continued a doctrine of superior firepower and even adopted the Deep Operation (AirLand battle). You might have a difficult time proving anything but piecemeal changes until Shock and awe, but although the authors mention it in their paper they aren't terribly savvy about it ("blitzkreig" throughout). 119 18:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well then, can we simply mention that DOd and NATo doctrine were influenced by Blitzkrieg? I am sure they were influenced by many other doctrines as well, but unless you are certain blitzkrieg influence was marginal, I think it is useful to include those links - if not only to let the reader continue reading on history of military doctrines in a more or less chronological order using links in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to play the childish rv war game. So tell me if you agree - or not - that this article should mention the following, and if you agree, then please add it where you think it fits best: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

During 1936-37 Guderian wrote the book Achtung! Panzer! (Attention! Tank!) detailing the German armored force and his concepts.

Oswald Lutz, a colleague of Guderian's and commander of pre-war motor troop posts

Ludwig Ritter von Eimannsberger, author of Der Kampfwagenkrieg'

Guderian would become one of the most famous of the so-called "panzer generals" during the Second World War, commanding the unit Panzergruppe Guderian. Others German famous panzer commanders would include: Erwin Rommel, commander of Deutsches Afrikakorps, Hermann Hoth, commander of the 4th Panzer Army and Sepp Dietrich, commander of Sixth SS Panzer Army during the Battle of the Bulge.

Precursor military doctrine section, mentioning at least some of: he idea of using rapid movement to keep an enemy off-balance is almost as old as war itself. However for the majority of history armies were limited in speed to that of the marching soldier, about equal for everyone involved. This meant that it was possible for opposing armies to simply march around each other as long as they wished, with supply conditions often deciding where and when the battle would finally be fought. Perhaps the most famous example of this ended with the Battle of Agincourt, prior to which Henry V of England avoided combat while marching to Calais to resupply, allowing him to pick the battlefield. Napoleon's introduction of logistics changed the nature of warfare considerably. Now the invading army was not under the same sort of timing pressure to bring the opposition to battle as soon as possible. This allowed his forces to attack where and when they wanted, often giving him the advantage of terrain. It also allowed him to form much larger armies because they were no longer straining the local economies directly. But things didn't really change until the introduction of various forms of mechanized transport, starting with trains. Now the opposing armies were no longer limited in speed, and a war of maneuver became a real possibility. Some train-borne maneuvering took place during the American Civil War in the 1860s, but the sizes of the armies involved meant the system could provide only limited support. In the Franco-Prussian War the Prussian army, knowing that the French could field larger forces, devised a war plan that relied on speed. If, on declaration of war, they could mobilise, invade and seize Paris fast enough, then they would be victorious before the vast French army could form and retaliate. This tactic was used to devastating effect in 1871, when the Prussian forces were able to defeat two large French forces before they were able to join in the field. Given the success they had in 1870s, it's not surprising that the German battle plan for what would become World War I was based on similar concepts. However technology had changed considerably in the four decades, with the machine gun and considerably more powerful artillery swinging the balance of power desicively to the defense. While all combatants were desperate to get the front moving again, this proved difficult. The introduction of the tank in a series of increasingly successful operations pointed the way out of trench warfare, but the war ended before the British plans to field thousands of them could be put into place.

Successor military doctrines, mentioning some of the following: The possibility of a massive Soviet tank attack on Western Europe using blitzkrieg tactics was the focus of NATO planning in the Cold War. The difficulty was that the standard tactic of trading space for time would have lead to Western Europe being overrun. The solution in the 1950s was a rapid escalation to nuclear war. In the 1960s, the existence of Mutual Assured Destruction made this untenable, and the focus of defense was changed to air land doctrine. The military doctrine of Rapid Dominance or shock and awe is considered by some a modern successor to blitzkrieg. Like blitzkrieg, rapid dominance emphasizes high amounts of communication and rapid strikes using combined arms to create confusion in the enemy. Unlike blitzkrieg, rapid dominance relies heavily on air power, large amounts of central coordination, and focuses on destroying the enemy's command and control structures rather than its supply lines.

As you are not willing to reply, I rewrote the mentioned paragraphs as best as I could and introduced them back. I invite you to improve them, but please remember - deletion 'because you think so, no sources given' is not an improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am most intrigued by this mention of Logistics under Napoleon. Can you give sources ? My reading of his huge successes (and I believe his big contribution to the war of manouvre) is that his armies 'lived off the land' so had very small logistics needs. My reading was that he mixed-n-matched his formations to fit the task, had combined arms teams, very flexible manouvre based combat planning and saught to pin and envelop before defeat in detail. Facius 10:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the very term might have two meanings: either the strict, tactical sense of a fast assault by a strong fast (often armoured) unit to the rear of the enemy lines, often with disregard for the flanks, or a strategical, much broader sense which is indeed similar to all kinds of maneuver warfare, from cannae tactics through Napoleon Bonaparte to late WWI cavalry and Polish-Bolshevik War tank assault on Koziatyn. Depending on which version we adopt, either the history sections belong to this article or to the other.

However, there are two questions to be asked before 172 again reverts the page to his (or hers) version: firstly, do we have to adopt one version and promote it over the other, and secondly, why delete large chunks of a great article at all? Perhaps it could be moved somewhere?

Finally, as to Guderians unit - between 1939 and 1940 the official name of it was XIX Armeekorps (usually translated to English as XIX Panzer Corps). AFAIR it was renamed to Panzergruppe Guderian at the outbreak of Nazi-Soviet war, shortly after Guderian was promoted to General-Oberst.

--Halibutt 01:15, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

First, minor note: I think you mean 119, not 172 :) Two. After an IRC discussion, I agree that most of the precursor section can be safely moved to Maneuver_warfare - atm this is in talk. I will work on it soon. Three. I will incorporate your Guderian info into the article ASAP. Four. Actually, you are right about the meanings: for example, the define:blitzkrieg search on Google gives only one definiotion: fight a quick and surprising war . Perhaps, then, the use of blitzkrieg in such manner is not a mistake, but an evolution of the word, which now has 2 correct meanings (1, German tactics in IIWW, 2, fight a quick and surprising war)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Albert Speer claims blitzkrieg is a journalistic term which was employed by the Ministry of Propaganda to discribe Wehrmacht actions and was never used by military planners.

nobs

Application by Allies

Some American commander, notably Patton, had studied the tactics of Guderian and Rommel and adopted them later in WW II (the term they often used was "haul ass and bypass". It is not a major point but worthy of comment if we can find the right place to work it in. --Pmeisel 16:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Next time, feel free to do it yourself - I basically adopted your comment :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've heard somewhere (probably Discovery) that the main reason the blitzkrieg succeeded is that while the Germans concentrated their tanks, the allieds spread them out among their infantry divisions. Germany had fewer and worse tanks than its opponents both during the invasion of Frane and during the invasion of Russia. T34 was wastly superior to PzIII. Another point not mentioned is the North Afrikan Campaign, that I belive almost drove the British out of Egypt due to the blitzkrieg doctrine. Eventually the Deutsches Afrikakorps had to retreat back because their supply lines were overstretched. Palestine-info 18:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article gives a pretty good summary of the reasons for success. Concentration of tanks was an important one, but the development of Panzergruppen in which all elements were mobile enough to keep up with the tanks was more important. It was these formations that enabled the swiftness of manouver that sowed confusion and demoralisation in the enemy and allowed the successes of Blitzkrieg. The article gives more info. DJ Clayworth 19:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate changes 2

On the other hand, by the late 1930s The Germans had re-organized their Army to include a number of elite Panzergruppen, divisions consisting almost entirely of tanks, infantry in half-tracks (precursors to modern armored personal carriers) and trucks to supply them.

Gruppen-level formations were not organized exclusively of panzer forces until later. The focus on them is, anyway, misleading, because Panzergruppen is not the same thing as any level panzer formation. Furthermore, elite is a subjective matter and it's never really claimed that the pre-war Panzertruppe was elite; it was created from service troops, logistics troops. Half-tracks were a consistent rarity (12% of Panzergrenadier at their peak, Race to the Swift) that were not employed principally by infantry until after the Polish campaign. 119 20:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am happy that you have better info. By all means, do update the article by ADDING those corrections, instead of removing the old paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See below. 119 22:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While the specific term blitzkrieg refers only to the German operations in the Second World War, blitzkrieg and other doctrines emphasising the use of armoured forces had its post-IIWW successors, just as they had pre-IIWW precursors. Soviet tank attack on Western Europe using modernised blitzkrieg tactics was the focus of NATO planning in the Cold War.

This was NOT blitzkrieg. Soviet doctrine developed in parallel to German doctrine. In fact, the Soviets developed some of the most modern doctrine prior to the war, and their pre-war commitment to maneuver was only equalled by Germany's. 119 20:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, right. I thought that the above sentence made it clear the mentioned events were NOT blitzkieg, but were its succesors (or developed pararelly based on similar precursor doctriens). Feel free to underline it even more strongly until you are satisfied that nobody can make a mistake. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You need to provide proof for your claims. In this entire argument you have not provided a single reference to support your claims. In contrast, my edits to this article are footnoted and from a 10-item reference section. As I have argued above, the information in that section is inaccurate. Now it is not my job to fix everything, I can sometimes only do the minimum of removing what is false. You, of course, are equally capable of researching and fixing this section. I am tired of your accusations against my edits that are not backed up by any kind of reference whatsoever. As I have said, my additions to this article are documented, while yours are not. That the Soviets adopted blitzkrieg tactics is not argued by any historian I have read, and that is my justification--if you have contrary information, then you need to use a reference and a footnote. Furthermore, the section name of "Successors" is not appropriate, as the Wehrmacht obviously did not use these other doctrines supposedly influenced by blitzkrieg. 119 18:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I have mentioned again and again, those are not my claims. I am simply bringing back text by other contributors you have deleted. There have been references in this text BEFORE you deleted half of it, and while the very sentences were not linked to relevant references by nots, as you do (which is commendable), you cannot argue that the text you deleted was not referenced by anything. While you have added some valuable information to the article, you have failed to provide any sources contradicting the information you are removing. Since as far as I can tell 1) this info is correct 2) you don't seem to be reading or replying to most of my comments here 3) you fail to understand the simple text, since nowhere in the text I rescue is it stated that a) soviets used blitzkrieg b) even suggested that Werhmacht used the successor tactics and 4) you are unwilling to achieve *any* compromise and have several times reverted even my minor gramar or copyedit changes, I am afraid I'll have to ask for some kind of arbitration. As far as this may disappoint you - this is *not* article 'Blitzkrieg according to 119'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

German commanders nevertheless were able to work out some potential problems in the chain of command and communications. One issue that became clear was that the terrain often imposed "choke points" where a well-situated strongpoint would stop the movement of the mechanized forces. Normally artillery would be used to deal with fixed emplacements, but artillery moves so slowly that the momentum would be lost. This would result in the development of mobile artillery, that could accompany the fast tank and mechanized forces, and on closer cooperation between land and air units, so that panzer commanders could request fast bombing mission where artillery was not present.

Your source? 119 20:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Previous edit to the page, likely in further reading. Your source with contrary information? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You cannot approach editing articles with the idea "anything is valid to put on Wikipedia unless someone else can prove it wrong." Assertions with no information to back them up do not belong in an article. 119 22:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea. So let's now delete about 90% of wiki articles with no refernces, and as far as I know - all you additions as well, cause you have not provided any sources for them...eh, really don't you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to do? Go write sth new, improve old, add references, give me sources to prove me wrong...eh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the war progressed, Allied armies, learning from their earlier defeats, began using their own variant of the blitzkrieg tactics against Germany.

Patton is famous for his rapid advance in France, but that wasn't blitzkrieg, that was simple pursuit. Fast movement is only one component of blitzkrieg; remember also its devolved decision-making, schwerpunkt, pocketing, etc. And Soviet doctrine, as noted above, is not a variant. So what Allied variants are these? 119 20:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, isn't simple fast movement pursuit a VERSION of blitzkireg? Or at least a related doctrine? Again, feel free to correct it so nobody can mistake them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Patton's movements included fast pursuit, but in many actions he used an armored spearhead to break through, then cut off and disrupt enemy forces prior to their flight. In his comments of the time, quoted in writings about him, he credits reading Guderian and Rommel for his guidance.

Saying that operations after 1941 were deterioriating and citing the failure before Moscow etc. is confusing the strategic with the operational. Germany conducted more limited but successful blitzkrieg offensives in 1942, so at the operational level it was still functional. Failure to relieve Stalingrad and Zitadelle are probably the first major and clear defeats of concentrated panzer forces. For this reason, 1941 in the Soviet Union was placed, under Operations, with Poland and France, and not with later operations. 119 20:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is mostly the difference in sectioning - I feel that analyzing the situation by front is less confusing. Btw, what about mentioned North Africa and Rommel vs. Montgomery? Do you think it would be worth mentioning?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And once again you delete information without showing sources to the contrary. I am happy when you add new info. I am not happy when you remove other without proving it wrong. This is article about Blitzkrieg, not 'Blitzkrieg according to 119'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please take a look at the discussion from Talk:Blitzkrieg#Inaccurate changes and this revert. Perhaps I am wrong here - I am not a person to start a rv war, so I'd appreciate other people opinon on who is right.I believe User:119 is removing large portions of materials (not to mentions hours of my edits) without any justificiation. He on the other hand accuses me of ignorance and consistently reverts most of my changes. It is hard to tell who is right as long as it is only me and 119 arguing about this matter. I'd appreciate your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It must be noted that Piotrus has made accusations or insinuations which are not supported by the facts

1. The material which I removed had been moved to Talk:Maneuver warfare for merging before Piotrus began editing this article. Seeing the talk above, it is obvious this was not my idea. That the material was being moved to Talk:Maneuver warfare is clearly stated in my edit summaries.
2. Piotrus makes allegations that I am "deleting" [above] "hours" [2] of his edits , and though I cannot quantify the time he has spent, it must be noted that his presentation of the issue is emotional and incomplete; it suggests he has written most of this article and I am deleting such material. Actually, I am moving to Maneuver warfare material which was here before he began editing--his original contributions stand with only some editng. Those original contributions are shown in this diff.

It it true I did not write most of this article (neither did you, for that matter). It was not my intention to appoproate the 'ownership' of this article. I have not spotted that you have moved part of the precursor section to the article's talk section. I am ok with shortening the precursor section in that case, but there are several other points we still disagree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Piotrus makes the emotional accusation that I am a POV pusher attempting to write 'blitzkrieg according to 119'. But I have provided extensive references and footnotes for what I write, while he has provided none.

This is a POVed statement. You don't have to agree with my accussation, but from my own obviously POVed perespective, I have yet to see you to agree to any form of compromise here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am furthermore alarmed to see that Piotrus has chosen to contact users he knows to comment on a dispute, rather than parties whose neutrality would be beyond question. Talk:Blitzkrieg was put on WP:RfC a few days ago by myself as "Dispute over inclusion of material." 119 01:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) Should I've contact random users? I wanted some comments quick 2) In all cases, I asked users to first familiarise themselve with the discussion and changes, and then either support me or *you*, if they deem me wrong. I see nothing wrong with that. I also asked people from IRC #wikipedia for comments. Again, I see no problem with this. Do you? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Introductory Edits.

Sorry for editing anonymously before, was using a public PC and forgot my PW.

I'm glad you approved of the intro changes 119.

However, perhaps some things should be reworded...while the ultimate desire was to motorise the other army elements (inf, arty, engineers), it remained a minority of german forces that reached this level of mechanisation.

I felt the need to rephrase things that indicated the germans had any substantial technical advantage over the allies in the opening phases, IMO the early german succeses were purely strategical/tactical/doctrinal

I also agree that there is a substancial difference between blitzing and other maneuver warfare (including rapid advances, armor spearheads etc.etc.) IMO blitzing is the use of an armored fist to penetrate the main line and is warefare predominantly by disruption, not only maneuver...which sets it apart from what the russians were doing 43-45

You are still anonymous :> Blitzkrieg is obviously diffrent and unique. But it had its predecessors, successors and influenced various Allied and Soviet tactics and countertactics, didn't it? Thats the point I am trying to make. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

The photo of the Panther tank is actually an early ausf A, not an ausf D as labelled. I hesitate to make the edit since this page seems so contentious. -DMorpheus 11-7-05

I am prevented from effecting the changes I point out below because of Piotrus and the users he has enlisted to simply revert me (Space Cadet and Emax, see their talk).

I am offended by your accusal that I enlisted ppl to rv you. I asked many ppl - including the vistiors to the #wikipedia IRC channel - to check this article. The fact is that apparently those who have spoken so far seem to prefer my version to yours. While it is true that Emax and Space Cadet simply revert you, I have made an effort to incorportate most of your suggestions into the article. While Emax and Space Cadet behaviour can be disputed, they are doing *exactly* the very same thing you were doing - as you were also reverting me without any regard to the scope of my changes. Furthermore, I believe you have broken the 3RR by doing 5 or more reverts: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I will, for now, let this slide - I hope this will force you to finally participate in the dicussion here instead of simply doing what you please with this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Three-revert rule applies to 24 hour periods. Although he has reverted more than three times, 119 has not violated the 3RR. Note that I am not condoning behavior or taking a side on what content should be here. Just making it clear what the rule actually says. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My apologies then to 119 for unfair accusation of breaking that rule then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While blitzkrieg strategy didn't exist until 1920s, the underlying idea of using rapid movement to keep an enemy off-balance is almost as old as war itself. Domestication of the horse, development of cavalry and eventually mechanized transport all led to what would eventually become known as blitzkrieg in the late 1930s.

How the domestication of the horse, cavalry, and "mechanized transport" (the correct term being motorized transport, as understood when drawing a distinction between motorized and mechanized infantry) all led to a strategy that "the attacker avoids fortifications and strong-points and goes for the enemies' command infrastructures and other strategic locations" (Comatose51's 2004 comment above) requires explanation. This is a completely unsupported assertion which ignores the definition of blitzkrieg and is so sweepingly broad as to be misleading. The French, British, Americans, and Soviets had domesticated horses, cavalry, and motorized infantry, too, yet they did not develop blitzkrieg. The completely unexplained conclusion which the editor draws and the unsupported and unexplained distinctions drawn regarding the importance of domestic horses etc. in blitzkrieg makes those assertions inaccurate to say the least. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is better explained it the main article (thus the main article template with manevrouve warfare link). It is really simple: by introducing units with variable speed (and faster from some other units, i.e. infantry), thus the eventual develppment of a strategy that "the attacker avoids fortifications and strong-points and goes for the enemies' command infrastructures and other strategic locations" became possible. And the fact that Germans developed blitzkrieg before other nations cannot be opposed to the fact that this tactic had its predecessors. Neither Guderian, nor Hart nor others simply woke up one day and said: "Eureka! I invented blitzkrieg from thin air!". This was simply a logical conlusion to earlier tactics and technology development. Other points: I don't mind mechanized for motorised. However, note that as I wrote above, your insistance on a narrow definition of blitzkrieg may be wrong - apparently there is now a second, wider meaning as well. Meanings evolve, face it.

---

Only after seeing German successes with Blitzkrieg, British finally put Fuller and Hart theories to pratical use. During the Second World War, number of lightly-armored and armed cruiser tanks were eventually used by the British Army, notably in the German invasion of France.

This is supported by none of the references currently listed. Cruiser tanks were created and integrated well before the war started, partly in accordance with the theories of Fuller and Hart, making their use obviously not a result of blitzkrieg. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First part is correct - until Germans showed the effectivenes of blitz, British were not convinced of the effectivness of such tactics. I am not going to argue for the second part of this sentence strongly, as I am not well versed with British tank strategy. I think that simply removing the word 'eventually' should clear the possible misunderstanding, allowed us to retain majority of info. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first part is correct because you say it is? The references I have provided contradict your conclusion; as we are not going for original research etc., you must provide some reference to justify these assertions. 119 17:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not believe the British ever adopted anything approaching blitz in WW II, and were the weakest in the employ of maneuver generally. Montgomery and Alexander were traditions "set-piece" commnaders who did not emphasize speed, and the only notable exception I am aware of, Operation Market-Garden, was a Brit disaster. This section needs some rework. Let's not delete it, let's rework it. Pmeisel 00:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

119: Please quote the relevant part in the references that would prove that after 39-40 British still ignored blitzkrieg and didn't adapt their strategies to counter it (because that is basically what you are saying). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

On the other hand, by the late 1930s The Germans had re-organized their Army to include a number of Panzergruppen, divisions with unprecedented concentration of tanks, infantry in half-tracks (precursors to modern armored personal carriers) and trucks to supply them. It should be noted that half-tracks were fairly rare, and were not employed principally by infantry until after the Polish campaign. German formations reliied on Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers, to complement artillery and allow for "breakthrough" attacks even far behind the lines. Most divisions were, however, still infantry divisions with horses and carriages.

Simply contradictory to all references. I paste partially from above: Gruppen-level formations were not organized exclusively of panzer forces until later. The focus on them is, anyway, misleading, because Panzergruppen is not the same thing as any level panzer formation. Half-tracks were a consistent rarity (12% of Panzergrenadier at their peak, Race to the Swift) that were not employed principally by infantry until after the Polish campaign. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble reading on understanding the text. 1) unprecedented concentration is NOT exclusively 2) nowhere is it mentioned that Panzergruppen is the same thing as any level panzer formation 3) the very text you mentiod does sais that: half-tracks were fairly rare, and were not employed principally by infantry until after the Polish campaign. Are you even reading the text you object to?! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Armoured forces were first used in the First World War to break a deadlock of position warfare too lethal to unaided infantry. After many unsuccessful operations, tank forces were employed by the Allied Powers at Hamel in a way that foreshadowed the later use of the blitzkrieg strategy. Some 500 tanks were massed at one point and committed after a coordinated air and artillery bombardment. Light tanks and cavalry achieved a breakthrough to eight miles and caused disruption in the rear areas. Plans were additionally made for a large-scale breakout and exploitation by tank forces, though not implemented because of Germany's surrender.

However, following the end of the First World War the British, French, and Polish armies did not expand upon the idea of independently operating tank forces. These nations adopted a doctrine of tanks as infantry support weapons. Tank units would be used to punch holes in the enemy lines, through which the mass of infantry could move forward. In this method, tanks would be dispersed among infantry units for primarily fire support and anti-tank duties, an aid to breaking frontlines. Thus, the general concept remained the same as in First World War, and was based upon the assumption that there would be some sort of frontline that the tanks would be used to breach, followed up with a new front developing at some other point. In this doctrine, the infantry retained its position as 'the queen of battle'.

During the interwar period, theories of mechanized forces were being developed by the British and Soviet militaries. British influence on blitzkrieg is unclear, but not mentioned by historians except when noting that Guderian had translated Fuller and Hart into German in the late 1920s. Fuller argued that if mechanized divisions were let loose in battle, a frontline would never develop: these units would have advanced hundreds of miles before any defense could form. Liddell Hart developed the concepts further, calling it the "indirect approach". In this concept the mechanized forces would attack at a point of least resistance, which they could pick because they would be able to move to any point of their choosing at high speed. The force would then be gathered into a single point (the armored spearhead), punch through the defenses, and then run into the rear areas. This disruption in the rear areas would greatly reduce the information available to an enemy commander and make them unable to intelligently or speedily act. These mobile forces would be advantaged by effectively blindfolding and paralysing enemy forces. In order to support this sort of warfare, Liddell Hart advocated the creation of units with plenty of trucks, armored cars, and light, high-speed tanks known as "cruisers".

French influence is not acknowledged, nor is American. Interwar British and French armored development is generally criticized as inadequate or stagnant. Only after seeing German successes with Blitzkrieg, British finally put Fuller and Hart theories to pratical use. During the Second World War, number of lightly-armored and armed cruiser tanks were eventually used by the British Army, notably in the German invasion of France. Examples include the Valentine, Crusader, and the final Cromwell. Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated on a limited scale, in secret and on largely technical matters, at testing grounds in Kazan and Lipetsk beginning in 1926.^[8]

This is largely irrelevant to the creation of blitzkrieg. As I have argued above:

Among military authors blitzkrieg is not understood to mean any kind of sudden war, as you [Piotrus] added to the article, but rather the mobile operations that Germany did/tried to conduct during the Second World War. Most broader concepts or histories belong in Maneuver warfare. This includes the maneuver theories of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States (including Patton) where they do not directly impact on Germany's execution of blitzkrieg.

Three paragraphs on the development of other militaries which it is acknowledged in the text had no or minimal influence on blitzkrieg logically requires explanation. This is self-contradictory. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I argued before, blitzkrieg seems to have 2 meanings. One narrow, what you call 'among military authors' and a much more widely used broad definition. Let me disagree with you that this is irrelevant to the creation of blitzkrieg - I belive that it is important to show what lead directly to it. I could agree to shorten this section and move it to man.warfere *if* I see more users - besids you - supporting such a move. Oh, and a careful reader of history section will note that at least one of the above paragrapsh you call not neceassary here, were added by yourself. I'll leave that without a commment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did write much of that, and I now think it should be removed. I assume you will not oppose this now, as below you said "The rest of the article [besides common meaning] should dicuss German blitzkrieg". Obviously this isn't understood to be German blitzkrieg by any military author, and its influence on blitzkrieg as presented there is clearly disproved by references to reputable military authors. 119 17:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing the point here, but it is clear to me that A) the Germans developed a new application of armored mobility that is widely known as "blitzkrieg", B) that the British never mimiced the tactic in WW II and have not had a large formation presence in ground war since then, C) that Patton's tactics with the Third Army in France were substantially the same as the German blitzkrieg. Pmeisel 00:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is truly amazing how you are still missing the point - I wonder if you are doing it on purpose. There must be an explanation how blitzkrieg was invented, and that Guderian didn't pull it out of the thin air. Simple as that. I am not going to repeat myself again on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is an explanation. It was a technological development expanding upon existing maneuver warfare doctrine. My library is a mess so I cannot quickly provide references, but this possibility was seen and commented upon, pre-war, by at least Rommel, Guderian, and Patton. The British did not adopt this offensive tactic at any point during WW II. There is some verbiage in the article that implies the British adopted it. They didn't, in spite of excellent strategic theory provided by Liddell-Hart (still one of the best books I have ever read). Pmeisel 15:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I was begining to feel I am alone on this. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. By all means, feel free to correct the sentences that give the mistaken impression that British used man.warfare extensively. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The possibility of a massive Soviet tank attack on Western Europe using modernised blitzkrieg tactics was the focus of NATO planning in the Cold War.

The Soviet Union did not use "modernised blitzkrieg tactics." I can find no source which proves this--only countless others which say the Soviet doctrine was that of the Deep Battle/Deep Operation and fail to mention an influence of blitzkrieg. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps 'modernised blitzkrieg tactics' is a bad phrase. Still, I am certain that Soviet military doctrine post-IIWW involved large armoured push to the west, and if it simply disregarded all lessons of blitzkrieg, I would be very much suprised. That you cannot find such a source, however, fails to convince me that this sentence is wrong. I'd really appreciate other users comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a bad phrase because it suggests that the Soviets just copied the German methods. In fact they had their own concept, called Deep Battle, developed in the 1930s. Here are some Google hits on this: [9],[10]. Of course that is not to say that the Russians did not learn from Blitzkrieg. Obviously they had to learn a lot, since it was being used against them.

As I said, I'd welcome any rewritten sentence here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You repeatedly say you "Welcome a rewrite" or clarification etc., then you simply revert a change when it removes the obvious factual inaccuracy of saying that Soviets used blitzkrieg. The references I list do not say the Soviets adopted blitzkrieg post-war, but rather that they continued with their Deep Battle/Operation. You must provide some kind of substantiation for this claim. 119 17:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite/clarification does not equal deletion, which is your solution to most problems. The article never sais that Soviets used a blitzkrieg. It sais that their strategies were to some extent influenced by blitzkrieg. Again, I am not going to repeat myself again on this. Please quote were in your references it sais 'Soviet strategies were not at all influenced by blitzkrieg'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

The possibility of a massive Soviet tank attack on Western Europe using modernised blitzkrieg tactics was the focus of NATO planning in the Cold War. The difficulty was that the standard tactic of trading space for time would have lead to Western Europe being overrun. The solution in the 1950s was a rapid escalation to nuclear war. In the 1960s, the existence of Mutual Assured Destruction made this untenable, and the focus of defense was changed to air land doctrine.

AirLand battle is a United States doctrine. To call it a NATO doctrine is false. 119 23:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please suggest how to rephrase this. US was a part of NATO, and this paragraph deals with NATO responce to Sovet armoured doctrines in Europe... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AirLandandSea should be stated as a US response to soviet action in europe..simple as that, nato is beyond this article and IMO the bit on the soviet union shouldn't even be here panzerjager88

---

In U.S. blitzkrieg has a broader meaning

This can be confirmed by consulting any of several dictionaries. Questioning this fact is part of the process at Wikipedia, but posting an objection on the text page is not considered appropriate.--Cberlet 02:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I admit that its popular usage deserves a brief mention, the fact that this is not considered correct by military historians should have been left in. Any technical discussion of blitzkrieg must obviously be limited to how it is defined among historians; to present French, Soviet, British etc. doctrine wholesale with no relation under an article on German doctrine is to disregard the organization and simple assumed definitions of the works that we, as a tertiary source, are to be summarizing. Anyway, compare the situation with Xerox and Photoshop and their wider, popular verb meaning.119 03:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMO bowing down to the "common" use of a term is below the purpose of spreading factually correct information...there are hundreds of cases of myths and the like being spread (the Sir Loin bit comes to mind)...lets not make the same mistake here, the "common" meaning SHOULD be referenced, but only in the context of what it has erroniously come to mean...and it should be stated what the TRUE meaning is (as defined by historians. panzerjager88

This is not simply a mistake, this is a case of definition evolving - the fact that the broader definition is found in majority of dictionaries is a proof of that. We should present this in a NPOV manner, not try to hide one of the definitions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not bowing to common usage to point out what will be obvious to most readers--that the term has a broader meanining in the popular vocabulary. It is only a brief mention, and the edit replaced what read like a discussion comment posted in the text. Here is the previous text:

"The term blitzkrieg was coined by Western journalists during the 1939 German invasion of Poland. Although it is now commonly used in reference to any quick and desicive military action, this is not correct; blitzkrieg is a distinct form of warfare used only by Germany during the Second World War."

If folks want to add a line like "Military historians limit the term to the German military operations of WWII." that would be NPOV. The original text was not NPOV.--Cberlet 12:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope my recent change is sufficiently NPOV and satisfies all sides here. Since majority of dictionaries use the broader term, we have to mention it - but one of 3 paragraphs in lead is enough for this. The rest of the article should dicuss German blitzkrieg, although I think when we have good references we could add a section on how the broader meaning evolved (who used it for the first time in that manner? etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased Piotrus' def bit, same flavor, more meaty wording ;)

IF this has to be NPOVed, the generalised reference is sufficient in that single line. To properly do justice to the word, the "true" definition should be elaborated on not at the expense of some generalised diatribe on maneuver warfare,force concentration, etc that the common use term describes. This isn't Scrabble after all. This is like the semetic debate, the term refers to a specific group of languages while the commmon usage has it frequently specifically relating to Jews...same deal here, you have a precise word that has been generalised. The "true" technical def should be emphasised. panzerjager88

Wouldn't a compromise be something along the lines of "although the term blitzkrieg has come to mean ... (the dots standing for whatever definition has or can be agreed upon), military historians of the German Army prefer the term bewegungskrieg, as that was the term used by the Wehrmacht to describe its doctrine of fast paced ... warfare.

cruiser tanks/british influence and german influence on british

not sure how that section should be reworked.

the british had the cruiser tank concept nailed down a while before bliz ever came around. Remember that they had a good bit of experience with fast tanks exploting through maneuver from WW1 in the form of the Whippet.

Also they used their tanks and thus maneuver to very good effect in north africa against the Italians. Again this was not blitzkrieg, and its presumptuous that this was a only due to a direct influence of german successes.

Remember too that it was the french who had the first mech inf, in the form of the dragons portés and the germans sought to imitate this in a limited fashion.

Dispute over what?

Okay, I've come in late here. Let me see if I can figure out what the dispute is about.

It states in our article:

"The term blitzkrieg was first coined by Western journalists during the 1939 German invasion of Poland in reference to the distinct form of warfare used by the Germans in their initial campaigns."

That means, despite the fact that the term is in the German language, it's not a German term; it started as mere journalism. Since then, different historians from different cultures have defined what it means, retroactively.

So, we are arguing about the precise definition of something that wasn't defined by the only people that actually did it, generations after the fact. Isn't this like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pin? There's not enough hard substance to be the basis any conclusive argument. There's no single agreed authority.

I don't see how any claim that blitzkrieg has to be this, or can't be that, or such-and-such led to blitzkrieg, or that such-and-such is derived from blitzkrieg, is anything but POV. In Wikipedia, all we can do is list all these claims in the article. We can't assert any of them to the exclusion of the others.

Or am I missing something?

-- A D Monroe III 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the definition is a source of contention. The disputed tag deals with the material laid out in Factual accuracy dispute. I put the tag up some time ago, and and the version that's stuck hasn't changed significantly. I've just gotten tired of being reverted without explanation or references. I'll make the intended edits today and at worst it can all start again and justify that little tag's continued presence. 119 00:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help me out -- I am not clear exactly on all of what is in contention either. I have clarified some info on Allied involvement that I believe was inaccurate previously. What else is in dispute? --Pmeisel 00:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The factual accuracy I disputed was laid out above. But anyway, I just made this edit. 119 02:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh...again, you add some valuable information, and again, you delete other info. Please tell us again why:

---

• do you remove the 'Blitzkrieg precursors' paragraph?

"While blitzkrieg strategy didn't exist until 1920s, the underlying idea of using rapid movement to keep an enemy off-balance is almost as old as war itself. Domestication of the horse, development of cavalry and eventually mechanized transport all led to what would eventually become known as blitzkrieg in the late 1930s.".

This is extremely broad and not pertinent to Blitzkrieg, especially as the article is over 32KB. Compare:

"Although political scandals are almost as old as politics itself, the creation of political parties, paper files, and eventually hotels all led to what would eventually become known as Watergate." 119 19:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, majority of this section is now incorportated in the man.warfare article. I still think such paragraph should be here, but I am not going to undelete it - unless I get some support from other readers here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• do you remove so much information from the 'Foreign influence' section? You add info about Soviets, but remove most related to British/French/Polish/USA

Note that the information on the Soviets is different for it describes actual collaboration of a non-doctrinal nature. As written in the text and referenced, "Foreign doctrines are widely considered to have had little serious influence." Given that the above statement is referenced and has not had contrary arguments made against it, why is a four/five-paragraph explanation of their doctrines appropriate? For context, I have described them in one sentence as "British, French, and American doctrines broadly favored a more set-piece battle, less combined arms focus, and less focus on concentration." 119 19:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It might had little impact on the doctrines of their own countries, but it did had *some* impact on blitzkrieg. I would agree to leave this out of this article IF you tell me where (in what article) can we put the information you deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• remove half info from 'Spanish Civil War' sect.?

The material removed is a wide-ranging yet unreferenced assertion. It furthermore doubles the size of a section without adding anything of value, for combined arms focus and mobility focus is discussed extensively and holistically in "Motorization and combined arms". 119 19:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is arguable if ALL information rm by you are found there, but this is a fairly small point I am willing to drop unless other readers support me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• remove the entire 'Opposing forces in 1939' sect.?

The second paragraph in Opposing forces is inaccurate, redundant, and not even discussing "Opposing forces" so I assume you are not seriously arguing against removing that. The first paragraph should be removed, integrated into campaign histories, or grossly expanded to include "Opposing forces in 1940", "Opposing forces in 1941", etc. as 1939 alone is of very limited value given the adaptations of and changes during the war which occured. I have removed things which are simply mushrooming an article about blitzkrieg with tangentially related paragraphs. 119 19:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge is good. Expand is good. Delete, for the last time, is not. I think that this section is as relevant as the section discussiong operations in the later years. Please merge, expand or I'll have to bring it back. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

And, last but not least, when I undo some of your changes, I *do* explain myself (as can be seen above), unlike you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Russia != Soviet Union

Woops; I should read a bit more carefully. Thanks for fixing my gaff, 119. —Michael Z. 2005-03-18 20:15 Z

Blitzkrieg

Isn't the translation of Blitzkrieg "Lightning War"

Yes, it is. From Wiktionary: German blitz (lightning, flash) and krieg (war).

Besides, as I've noted before, it is not a German word. It was coined by an unknown Western journalist, who defined it as German for "lightning war". Even if takes on a slightly different meaning in German, this isn't a German article.

I've changed the intro back to "lightning war". --A D Monroe III 14:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was changed by an anon two days ago. Agree lightning war, no big deal. 119 05:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

with german as my mother tongue, I wouldn't translate "blitz" as "lightning", a "blitz" is ONE single flash, and the whole weather phenomenon of dark clouds and frequent flashing (= lightning) is called "gewitter".--79.194.220.17 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)--79.194.220.17 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case "Blitz" means "fast". For example you can say "schneller als der Blitz" which means "faster than a lightning". I think this would be a better translation. --80.109.31.135 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

theory/etymology section

Some mention NEEDS to be made that on a tactical/operational level the objective of blitz was to affect a rapid penetration of the enemy tactical defenses and move into the enemy strategic/operational depths in order to acheive "operational freedom" to begin the "dismemberment" and collapse of the enemy army via attacks on logistics, communications and complete the material destruction of the enemy troops via encirclement

i also question the idea that a small professional army was a single characteristic of a blitzkrieg minded army

why would you prefer small to large if the same level of professionalism could be acheived...the reality was that the germans could afford to be very elitist and selective at the beginning and far less so at the end...this was relatively independant of the designs or tenets of blitzkrieg

i thus think it is more precise to specify that blitz required an extremly cohesive and technically advanced army, which implied a relatively small size and high level of training...which in turn implied a core of proffessional troops rather than conscripts

panzerjager88

Regarding the size of the army, a professional force of 200,000 men was advocated by von Seeckt to be most of the motorised component of the wartime army. The German General Staff considered Germany to be unable to wage a protracted campaign, and it was intended that this professional and mobile army would be able to win campaigns without mobilisation or using huge resources. This is of course the theoretical or ideal, and noted as such in the article. I'm not sure what description you would prefer? 119 00:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm not arguing that a small army was NOT advocated by germany (when it was, due to both fallitic strategic thinking and pragmatic realities) at the start, but that in a section dedicated to a generalist OVERALL theoretical examination of blitz through its "lifetime", its rather silly to innacuralely portray the size and scope of forces based on first estimates. Kursk was in many ways was the final blitz (or attemp at one at least), yet was massive in scale.

I would prefer a description that emphasised coordination, training, cohesiveness and mobility. As well as one that emphasised the tactical/operational goals more explicitly

panzerjager88

This article is, I think overall, very good. Perhaps a bit too long? However it seems to me that the "Etymology and modern meaning" section should be a discussion about just that, discussion of the word "Blitzkrieg" itself.. Starting at "Strategically, the ideal".... until "operated as a combined-arms team" Is well done but it belongs elsewhere. KAM 18:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact the article is a disaster; it simply perpetuates the old myth. Never read Frieser's Blitzkrieg-Legende?--MWAK 12:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your point is Blitzkrieg is not a new tactic, doctrine etc, but an after the fact description of the successful result. An analogy would be “the Nelson touch” It is as if a french military historian was to analyze the successful battles of Nelson, breaking down the reasons for his success into elements, then naming the use of these elements “The Nelson Touch”. Part of the explanation of what the French now called “The Nelson Touch” should include the fact that it was not exactly a tactic but elements etc etc. Now, I think that this explanation should go in the Etymology and modern meaning section, It already partly there....“longstanding german principle of Bewegungskrieg”.... OR there is the Piotrus answer Great, go right ahead and be bold.KAM 01:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, my points are these:

1. There is a conceptual distinction to be made between Bewegungskrieg and Blitzkrieg, the main difference being that the latter takes the collapse of the enemy for granted and adjusts its operational and logistical planning accordingly.
2. Blitzkrieg was a new tactic, in fact so new it was not the official German doctrine in 1940.
3. So new in fact that even Guderian didn't propose it before the war; his prewar writings are not about Blitzkrieg.
4. Fall Gelb was not a planned Blitzkrieg campaign.
5. The official German doctrine was not essentially different from the French, British and Soviet. The Germans mainly differed from the French and Soviets in investing more in trucks and less in tanks.
6. Fuller and Liddell Hart at some point in their careers advocated Blitzkrieg but their influence before the war was practically nil. All armies rejected their theories, including the German. Although Guderian found their theories very exciting, he too explicitly rejected them.
7. All these professionals were right: Blitzkrieg should be rejected as a general doctrine: it can only work under very special conditions. Guderian recognised these were present on 14 May 1940 and simply took the opportunity.
8. Today's common misconceptions about Blitzkrieg should attributed to Liddell Hart: this conceited man deliberately distorted historical truth to improve his reputation, thus creating the Myth of Blitzkrieg.
9. Read Frieser.

--MWAK 09:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MWAK about all except: So new in fact that even Guderian didn't propose it before the war; his prewar writings are not about Blitzkrieg. I think that the strategy and concept from Achtung Panzer! directly inspired blitzkrieg. I'm not saying he was the only person to use it or the first, I'm just saying I think the concept came up before WWII. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Africa

Was blitzkrieg used by Rommel and his Afrika Korps in NA? If so, this deserves a mention in the article, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Auftragstaktik

Shouldn't auftragstaktik at least be mentioned in this article? KAM 14:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Feel free to expand on auftragstaktik. Making an article on it would help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Done, now at Mission-type tactics from german wikipedia I propose replace "and the presence of a decentralized command structure". with "the use of Mission-type tactics" or similarKAM 22:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Great, go right ahead and be bold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your assist. Until I reviewed Auftragstaktik I didn’t realize it was called Directive control. I now see it appears under paralysis. KAM 11:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Superior

A minor point, but a synonym for the word "superior" in the second paragraph would not go amiss. McPhail 22:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

von Seeckt

''Following the war, these concepts were modified by the Reichswehr. Its Chief of Staff, Hans von Seeckt, moved doctrine away from what he argued was an excessive focus on encirclement. Rather, von Seeckt advocated effecting breakthroughs against the enemy's centre when it was more profitable then encirclement or where encirclement was not practical. He additionally rejected the notion of mass which von Schlieffen and von Molkte had advocated.

The article gives too much credit to von Seeckt's role in the development of Blitzkrieg. While von Seeckt perserved the army and architect its eventual rise with the creation of an "army of 100,000 officers", his role in Blitzkrieg is quite limited. He was not the intellectual forefather of the Blitzkrieg but rather the material forefather. As argued in the German Army 1933-1945 by Matthew Cooper, page 119, "von Seeckt remained a conservative by inclination, and was determined to shape the Reichsheer according to the best traditions of the Imperial Army.", namely manuver warfare and the ideas of von Molkte and Schlieffen. However, Blitzkrieg stems from the tactics developed in the later stages of WWI, pioneered by the stormtroopers and their infiltration tactics. These were not the ideas of von Molkte. While von Seeckt might have modified and further qualified the ideas of manuver warfare, he did not break from them. Blitzkrieg was a break from those ideas. Instead of being obsessed with surrounding the enemy, Blitzkrieg aimed for their logistics and command.

Therefore, shouldn't we qualify the section in question. It would be Guderian who would make the actual break and go off in a new direction. Comatose51 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several notions here that are, I feel, perhaps either confused or factually incorrect:

1. Von Seeckt basically still supported manoeuvre warfare. True, but then so did everyone else, the French and Guderian included.
   1. Right so why are we giving credit to Von Seeckt? He did what everyone else did. Guderian might have still supported manuver warfare but he also help developed what would later become Blitzkrieg. My disagreement isn't over who supported what but what did Von Seeckt do that would give rise to the ideas of Blitzkrieg later on?
      1. See my point two: he emphasized flexibility and a higher operational tempo. Such a doctrine is more conducive to the formation and employment of armoured units capable of independent offensive action.
2. Manoeuvre warfare is a coherent concept. True, but there are also different possible versions of it. The French version was the Bataille Méthodique, not, as caricature has it, some WWI frontal attack but the doctrine that after the breakthrough phase the attacking units must act in closely supervised strict cooperation to ensure the most favourable force ratio and thus loss ratio. This implies the operational tempo is rather low. The French were forced to adopt this doctrine by their desperate manpower shortage. It might be thought that the same motive must apply for the diminutive professional German army, but it was so tiny even methodical battle wouldn't help enough. As Von Seeckt, given the small size of his army, couldn't hope to achieve an overwhelming numerical superiority anyway and certainly couldn't afford to wear it down executing a number of consequent Kesselschlachten , he emphazised freedom of movement and operational flexibility. Of course the difference from the French doctrine was only gradual and the idea had nothing new to it.
3. Blitzkrieg stems from infiltration tactics. Is this true? No. Yes, Blitzkrieg in a way simply is infiltration tactics on the largest possible scale. But it still doesn't stem from them because there is no causal connection, only a formal identity. It wasn't as if sombody studied infiltration tactics and then had the sudden revelation that it could be used on the strategic level also. Nor was there some gradual development from small scale tactics to a doctrine with a larger scope. This wasn't necessary. Blitzkrieg is a technologically enhanced application of age-old principles any fool can understand (hence its present appeal ;o). No special genius is required. However most professional tacticians of the day were a bit more than mere fools. They understood something more: that taking for granted that movement will ensure the collapse of the enemy is perfectly allright on the tactical level, a sound practice on the operational level — but irresponsible foolhardiness on the strategic level. German officers were the most professional of all: neither the official German doctrine nor any German operational plan embodied Blitzkrieg in that sense — as opposed to mechanised manoeuvre warfare in general — until the summer of 1940.
   1. A lot of ideas are very obvious once it is discovered. I'm not so convinced that it was so obvious back then when WWII first broke out or before that. I seems like infiltration tactics during WWI was a pioneer in the sense that warfare before that point didn't try to avoid the strong points. Instead, they tried to emphasize a decisive moment. At the very least Blitzkrieg share the same spirit. I don't doubt your assertion that there is no casual link between the two but I think it's worth mentioning because infiltration tactics were new when it was first employed.Comatose51 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      1. I fuly agree with you on that point.--MWAK 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Guderian made the actual break. Very, very true. But he made it on 16 May 1940, not earlier. Before the war, despite being a firm believer in mechanised manoeuvre warfare like most tacticians of all nations, Guderian was not a proponent of any "Blitzkrieg". To the contrary, he explicitely rejected the adoption of any such strategic adventuring as a general doctrine. In May 1940 he simply judged that no risk was involved. --MWAK 07:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
   1. I find that notion rather difficult to believe. It's not as though he woke up one day and said, I'll support Blitzkrieg and gave it a title, right? He laid down a good deal of ground work first before doing that. Blitzkrieg didn't suddenly just emerge out of nowhere but slowly and gradually went off on its own. Whether he supported it whole hearted from the start is not that important. In any case, my point is giving Von Seeckt so much credit is misleading.Comatose51 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      1. But now you seem to consider Blitzkrieg as the inevitable endproduct of some necessary development of tactical evolution. Certainly Guderian laid down the groundwork for the practical implementation of mechanised manoeuvre warfare. Yes, doing so he made it more likely that true Blitzkrieg would emerge. But it wasn't inevitable. Then on 16 May, like many German field commanders, he made the conscious decision to disobey orders. Of course this shows the tactic had a momentum of its own. And obviously he didn't directly endorse any doctrine at that point. Still it was also a moment of revelation to all involved. And Von Seeckt indeed played a very minor role :o).--MWAK 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. Charles de Gaulle, Hart, Fuller and others all envisioned coming changes in warfare caused by of rapid changes in technology, communications etc. (changes that would later seem obvious) However the German military was more efficiently able to overcome bureaucratic resistance and apply new methods to the battlefield. Von Seeckt’s (crucial) contribution, was the 57 committees, the open war games, free discussion, flattened command structure, creating an environment where new ideas could be tested with minimum politics. Von Seeckt’s own ideas are almost beside the point. KAM 17:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. His setting up of a learning environment and a systematic review of weapons, tactics and strategy was his contribution. In that environment the later famous figures were able to test and discover as well as train and codify. The ideas were 'everywhere' but the first large scale successful systematic use was in the Army created under the leadership of Von Seeckt. I am confident that almost all of the ideas were not his. Facius 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet strategy

a friend of mine verbally explained to me a soviet strategy in reducing the effectiveness in battling the blitzkrieg. I believe that this strategy is mentioned in the article as "Deep Battle", but is not explained. As my friend explained, the Soviets had many lines of forces setup along the front. as the Germans broke through their lines, that line would fall back. the germans would move up again and would break through this next line, which would fall back as well. eventually the germans faced a huge number of forces and would be overwhelmed. Hopefully my friend was right and this anti-blitzkrieg tactic can be explained in the article (so i can understand it in better detail). thanks kids, Kilter 05:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not Deep Battle, but Defence in Depth. It's what they more or less tried to do in 1942 with some success, what they did afterwards to stem the more local German offensive for the duration of the war and what they should have done in 1941. What they did in 1941, that's Deep Battle: you lure the enemy into the depths of your territory and then you block and surround him with large mobile forces to wipe him out. Not a bad tactic but too difficult for the Red Army to execute so it led to a quick and catastrophic defeat.

About Defence in Depth; there really isn't much to understand. Your friend explained it quite well :o). One minor point however. In practice the first lines are simply sacrificed (of course you don't tell them this beforehand); the trick is to exhaust the enemy's supplies while lengthening his supply lines. Success guaranteed.

--MWAK 10:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, sweet. Thanks for the explanation. I guess there isn't too much to add into the article concerning this strategy. Kilter 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Deep Battle is actually all about massive attacks concentrated on a small area, with usually three echelons, or waves of attackers. It is a shock tactic with the aim of penetrating to the rear areas of an enemy through a massive frontal assault of epic proportions. Usually preceded by a saturating artillery barrage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.114.239 (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

First, I thought the featured article was protected? Also, the history page shows the current version of the page should be a good one, but I still see the vandalized one.

TJSwoboda 03:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is so bad it doesn't deserve to be either featured or protected :o( --MWAK 10:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge

What is the reason for claiming that the battle at Vimy Ridge was the first use of Blizkrieg? I don't see any mention of this on that page and the battle seems to have been a conventional infantry attack, albeit one that was remarkably well planned and executed. Leithp 08:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This simply shows the conceptual vagueness of the popular usage. One might as well call the Third Battle of Ypres a Blitzkrieg campaign (Lots of tanks, strategic drive to the Flemish coast: a true forerunner of May 1940 :o). The professional usage refers to a tactic that has at least these two distinguishing elements:

1. Deep strategic penetration by mechanised forces.
2. Operational collapse caused by the penetration itself.

--MWAK 10:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this reference. As you say, Vimy Ridge and other set-piece battles with limited objectives were nothing to do with blitzkrieg, however well-conducted. The claim, "Some historians claim ..." is uncited. I have however added a reference to some British operations in WW2 (Operation Compass and its exploitation) which had elements of blitzkrieg, adapted by Wavell from his analysis of Allenby's methods in Palestine. HLGallon 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you care therfore to say which elements were present and which not so we can distinguish from Vimy Ridge ? Facius 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Substitute "cavalry" for "mechanised" in Point 1 in MWAK's comment above, and you have Allenby's operation in a nutshell. To be fair, the Turks in Palestine were on the point of collapse anyway. The Canadian attacks at Vimy and during the Hundred Days Offensive were all limited-objective set-piece attacks. (The Battle of Amiens was a possible exception, but this was not primarily a Canadian conception.) HLGallon 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft

No mention of the use of aircraft (dive bombers etc) as mobile artillery in the support of blitzkrieg - worth mentioning or not ? GraemeLeggett 12:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

i'd say it is definitely worth mentioning...combined arms was one of the keys to german success...the luftwaffe providing cas and arty supporting the armored and mechinf forces was very important. 69.133.157.123 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Phonetic Transcription of Blitzkrieg?

Please provide a phonetic transcription of Blitzkrieg. aCute 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When you pronounce it as Bleetskreeg and keep the first "ee" shorter than the second you can't go wrong...:o)--MWAK 10:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

revert to earlier version because of vandalism

I reverted the page to an earlier version because of vandalism (see pag hsitory). In the mean time an anonymous author replace however the vandalism with the following text. Perhaps it might be merged into the main article:

Blitzkrieg was an operational-level military doctrine which employed mobile forces attacking with speed and surprise to prevent an enemy from organising a coherent defence. Conceived in the years after World War I, it grew out of the earlier doctrine of "Fire and Infiltration". It was used by the German Wehrmacht in World War II. Operations early in the war—the invasions of Poland, France, and the Soviet Union—were highly effective, owing to surprise, enemy unpreparedness and superior German military doctrines. Methods of blitzkrieg operations centered on using manoeuvre rather than attrition to defeat an opponent. The blitzkrieg thus first and foremost required a concentration of armoured assets at a focal point, closely supported by mobile infantry, artillery and close air support assets. These tactics required the development of specialised support vehicles, new methods of communication, new tactics, and the presence of a decentralised command structure. Broadly speaking, blitzkrieg operations required the development of mechanised infantry, self-propelled artillery and engineering assets that could maintain the rate of advance of the tanks. In combat, blitzkrieg forced slower defending forces into defensive pockets that were encircled and then destroyed by following German infantry.

Donar Reiskoffer 14:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the summary from the featured article bit on the main page. Leithp 14:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

There's a paragraph under Interwar Period, Reichswehr which reads:

Bewegungskrieg hierarchy. This ability to react and make effective decisions faster is a critical advantage and a major reason for the success of Blitzkreig.

As a standalone paragraph this doesn't make any sense, especially with the leading sentence. I think it's intended to be part of the preceeding paragraph about the bewegungskrieg doctrine but doesn't really make much more sense joined to the paragraph before it.

Serious Problem with Links

I read mostly music articles on wikipedia and i guess there is some band called "Lightning War" and every single time it is linked to from some music page, it goes to this page and i can't find the disambiguation page.

Kursk is mentioned as being one of the last German blitzkrieg operations, however, kursk is said to embody the negative non-blitzkrieg strategy forced on the werhmacht by Hitler. Blitzkrieg was not possible at kursk b/c of the defenses set up by the russians. The germans knew this from reconaissance, and the general staff objected b/c of the lack of blitzkreig applications, but Hitler wanted a big showdown. Kursk was not blitzkrieg, far from it. This needs to be changed ASAP, b/c it is totally innacurate!

Kursk was not a German Blitzkrieg (never could have been)

Kursk is mentioned as being one of the last German blitzkrieg operations, however, kursk is said to embody the negative non-blitzkrieg strategy forced on the werhmacht by Hitler. Blitzkrieg was not possible at kursk b/c of the defenses set up by the russians. The germans knew this from reconaissance, and the general staff objected b/c of the lack of blitzkreig applications, but Hitler wanted a big showdown. Kursk was not blitzkrieg, far from it. This needs to be changed ASAP, b/c it is totally innacurate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

InternetHero (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)== Battle of the bulge ==

The Ardennes offensive is mentioned as being one of the last "major" german blitzkriegs, however, the force that attacked the western allies in the battle of bulge was not great ( in terms of supplies, infantry, tanks, gasoline, etc). The German offensive's size was too small to be thrust agianst the red army, and thus was thrown at the western allies.

regardless of the size of the force, or the motives for using it against the west, the intent was blitzkrieg, plain and simple. 69.133.157.123 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a major offensive. They got everything from engineers to airforce personelle to help out. It was a last ditch effort, so yes I think it was 'major".

Other uses

Anon added the following, erasing part of existing text (thus my revert). If you think it is useful, feel free to incorporate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, blitz has come to describe the "blitz" (rush) tactic of American football, and the blitz form of chess in which players are allotted very little time. Blitz or blitzkrieg is used in many other non-military contexts.

Clarification

This is the second sentence of the second paragraph. What exactly is meant by 'later operations early in the war' ?

While operations in Poland were rather conventional (see detailed discussion below), later operations early in the war — particularly the invasions of France, The Netherlands and initial operations in the Soviet Union — were effective owing to surprise penetrations, general enemy unexpectence and an inability to react swiftly enough to the superior German military doctrines.

The later operations are spelled out in the same sentence. What part don't you understand?Michael Dorosh 23:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst

A long, well laid-out article that is continuing to spread a lot of disinformation (e.g. Kursk being Blitzkrieg), does not reflect latest historical research (that was available at the time this article became FA) such as Frieser's 'Blitzkrieg Legende', and is somehow selected as FA. Andreas 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly support major changes to this article as they are obviously needed. It appears the FA status is generally given out based on form, not substance.Michael Dorosh 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and changed some of the stuff that caught my eye as objectionable - especially continued use of the word "panzer" which is really meaningless in the contexts presented here. I've substituted "armour" where appropriate, and "motorized forces" where I thought it was implied. The two are obviously not the same thing - the article sadly drew no distinction. I also rooted out "Luftwaffe" as it seemed over used. The article reads a bit less like a love letter to 1960s pulp war magazines now but would still benefit from solid sources and citations. I've also lessened use of the word "blitzkrieg" since the article itself is trying to define the word. I've substituted "deep penetration operations", "encirclement battle", "combined arms tactics" etc. where I thought it was implied by 'blitzkrieg' but the words seems to be thrown around a lot in the article without any real definition of what is meant - what I thought the whole point of the article was in any event. :-) Michael Dorosh 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Close cooperation with infantry?

In the introduction of the article, it is stated that "One of the defining characteristics of what is commonly known as "Blitzkrieg" is close co-operation between infantry and tanks." However, Erwin Rommel used Blitzkrieg solely with tanks alone while commanding the 7th Panzer, and did not wait for his infantry to catch up. So, does Blitzkrieg require infantry? --218.186.8.12 04:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Every major German (and US, and British, and Soviet) armored formation included a balanced team of Infantry, tanks, artillery, engineers, etc. That is how the age-old concept of combined arms got put into practice in the mechanized age. Tanks (or any other branch) on their own would not last long. The highest level unit at which only one arm is represented is typically the battalion. Even if it goes by a different name in some armies. Formations commanded by Rommel were not exceptions... DMorpheus 23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also support aircraft (Stukas, etc.) were an important part of it. Historian932 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the latter. The Panzer divisions were in fact, mini-armies. InternetHero (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Civilians

"Furthermore, in the total war doctrine, civilians were explicitly targeted (as in the German bombing of London or the Allied bombing of Dresden), in an effort to break the morale of the citizenry of a country in order to frustrate attempts at production, and ultimately support for the cause over which the war was fought." This has nothing to do with Blitzkrieg just some IP

Hi, anybody that reads this, I nead a basic blitzkrieg war plan sketch, send to [mrsunshine_zant@inbox.com]

Not entirely, but yes it is over the top. That moron-Goring tried "terror" bombing tactics on London, but I think you're right for the most part. InternetHero (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guderian - translation / clarification required

What, pray, is a "special visual facility" ? (See section on "Guderian's blitzkrieg".) Is it advanced weapon sights, or merely a identification mark painted on ? Without amplification, the phrase is mere verbiage. HLGallon 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Methamphetamine

I think I have heard about the Blitzkrieg being fueled by methamphetamines. Has anyone else heard of this?71.145.173.76 04:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this too but have never heard of any reputable evidence. Sort of falls under the "you can make up anything about them because they were Nazis" school of history for that reason for me, unless something changes. Historian932 (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They tried mass eperiements with cocaine in WW1, but not to any great extent in WW2. Some SS troops had them like spirits I think. InternetHero (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Effect on Civilians

The "effect on civilians" section is extremely misleading. Bombing of civilian targets during World War 2 came largely out of strategic bombing doctrine, which had nothing to do with blitzkrieg. I have removed the references to these. H27kim 17:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats what the sirens on the Stukas were for. In respect to that, yes the civilians were considered. I used to read a lot on this and I remember that a specific strategy was to induce refugees to hinder the movement of any counter-attacks. InternetHero (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I intend to remove it again; it seems like POVish nonsense to me. I am not sure we can really render any sort of meaningful statement on the comparative effects of military tactics or strategy on civilians. It could be argued that a quick, low-casualty campaign such as 1940 was really good for civilians because of the limited destruction and losses.....but that would just be another POV so let's remove it altogether, eh? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosier's Book

I strongly believe that John Mosier's book The Blitzkrieg Myth should NOT be included under "Further reading". The reason is not that it is controversial or, in terms of research and writing, of inferior quality; but because Mosier (who, unwittingly or not, ignores contemporary research on the subject) presents as novel conclusions which are not new and 'debunks' a myth which has already been 'debunked' for some twenty odd years. As such, his book is more likely to mislead than to help those unfamiliar with the subject. Bateman provides a cogent review of Mosier's book here [11]; I would only add that Bateman confines himself to English language publications. The issue would have been even starker had others been included -- for instance, the original (German) version of Frieser's book was published years before Mosier. Aleksis (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. His work is crap anyway IMO. DMorpheus (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Achtung Panzer! article?

A lot of us know about Heinz Guderians strategy book "Achtung Panzer!" A lot of us also know that it helped with the concept of blitzkrieg, but does this count as the Achtung Panzer! article, as it shows a lot of Guderians concept? Does a Achtung Panzer! article need to be made? Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A section should probably be made under the History chapter. I read that Hitler himself described the tactical parts (the initial phase) while Guderian's strategy wasn't altered. InternetHero (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why a picture of a tank destroyer?

The picture of the Jagdtiger, I mean, it's a neat picture but the caption seems to indicate that tank destroyers were defensive in nature and therefore part of the non-blitzkrieg nature of German operations in the later years of the war…so why is it at this page? Historian932 (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It should be removed. InternetHero (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I must, reluctantly agree, especially as the author of eloquent additional lines of its photograph's caption. Seriously, it's a good image, just not appropriate to the article.

Tigers were defensive in use, if not in conception, tank killers (fortunately for the planet, the Germans only managed to build a little more than 1300 of all types!!), a role they played the role to perfection, inflicting massive casualties, particularly on the Allied forces of Overloard. These machines were one of the reasons the "breakout" didn't occur until August (tho' I'm not diminishing the importance of the bocage country and Montgomery's preference for over-planning his set-piece attacks. If only Patton had been given battlefield command--but this is an old argument, one the British have had the worse of for more than 60 years...)

Image if Hitler'd had 2000, let alone 5000, such monsters!) whose designed recognized that the "glory days" of the Battle of France or Barbarossa's brilliant victories of 1941 and 1942.

But that's just part of a larger problem with the article: it's far to vast in scope. Much of it should be, in my opinion, properly included in an article on the history of Tank Warfare and not just "Blitzkrieg" which was only one way to use armor, and not always the most effective, as Montgomery's "set-piece" tactics and the Stavka's devastating response to it at Kursk (in which Hitler and his general's were drawn into a gigantic tank killing field that destroyed the German tank masse de manouvre).

Though Kursk is generally agreed to be the greatest--in terms of numbers of tanks invovled, tho' some plumb for the Israeli-Syrian battle in the '73 War--the tank vs. tank encounter only took place after the Germans had been grievously weakened by foolishly attempting to pierce the "defense in depth" designed by the Soviets, a defense that had eight (!!) lines thickly studded with tank traps, pillboxes, concealed artillery, barbed wire, and critical placement of minefields, having much more in common with World War I trench tactics than "modern" mobile war.

In other words, much of this material, some of it high quality, some of it not so high, belongs in another place and the remaining article should be much shorter. But "gigantism" (to quote a remark about largeness in American and Soviet factories by Paul Kennedy) is a major problem in wikipedia articles generally. One of the major drawbacks of having no over-all, coordinated corps of editors centrally directed.

PainMan (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar (comma)

I don't think its worth edit-warring over, but I made an edit in respect to punctuation and it was reverted without any precursors or link to a discussion. Perhaps a new user, but I'm going to revert after I notify him. I'll try and give him some clam advice about etiquette. InternetHero (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

The image Image:Ju 87D-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Could substitute Image:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 050602-F-1234P-005.jpg which is on Commons and seems not to have copyright restrictions. P0M (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture acompanying 'Definition and methods in the German blitzkrieg WWII'

The picture of a Fw-190 is, in my opinion, inappropriate. I would suggest using a Ju-87's picture as it was the main tactical bomber during the time in WW2 when blitzkrieg was used. In the later years of the war, the germans were primairly on the defensive and not employing blitzkrieg tactics. Thus media:Ju87A_050406-F-1234P-041.jpg or media:Ju 87B NAN1Sep43.jpg or media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg would, in my opinion, be more appropriate than the current media:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 050602-F-1234P-005.jpg. I request notification as to which picture is the most appropriate. Just my views on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sun1011101 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I like all of them, but maybe the third one would be the best simply because it shows the swastika. P0M (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sun1011101 is entirely correct in this posting. The Ju-87, the Stuka, was the major German tactical dive bomber is "blitz" warfare.

One of the things almost universally mentioned by World War II memoirs is the piercing shriek of the Stuka (generated by devices purposefully installed to instill fear into the enemy, quite effectively in the Polish campaign, the Battle of France and the early months of Barbarossa, though it lost much of its effectiveness once enemy troops were experienced with it. As Sir John Keegan once put it, "one battle is quite enough" to get a man used to fighting.

During the Battle of Britain, by the way, the Stuka would demonstrate a critical weakness, one quickly exploited by the RAF (and subsequently by the Soviet an American Air Forces): it was glacially slow when pulling out of a bombing descent, thus rendering it terribly vulnerable to enemy fighters and ground-based anti-aircraft fire.

Still for the Polish, French and Russian soldiers who were its targets, the first experience was something never forgotten.

PainMan (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Slaughter of the footnotes

Just reverted, to proper format, the footnotes (of the introductory section) after someone (HLGallon?) turned them into a mishmash. He or she even left out the name of the first book cited! How is a reader supposed to find a quote or fact if the name of the sources is omitted?!

To whomever did this: please take a look at some of the history books in your own house to see that using the the Latin abbreviation Ibid, and the page number is quite orthodox. However, since that depends upon knowing to which previous book cited that Ibid refers to (in my personal experience, often leading to trailing one's finger up a page for several centimeters to find the referenced book), I added the author's name to make it clearer. I know of no "rule" that prevents this (I'm always willing to be corrected if shown to be incorrect); not that it matters terribly much given the, ah, fluidity of English grammar and useage.

Besides, wikipedia is intended to be the "people's encyclopedia" and should not, therefore, I think slavishly follow the MLA or other self-appointed "authorities."

However, the way it was reverted left it an unacceptable mess.

If there's more, ah, "creatively" reverted cites, I simply don't have the time, right now, to undo. Gots to get going.

PainMan (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Someone added some well-written, erudite material to the big revert I did on the intro paragraph. Because of the mess the footnotes were left in, a revert was absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, I goofed it and reverted out some of the excellent additions. Since I'm doing this on a friend's blackberry and have to get to this meeting (Execs of Fortune 50 companies probably don't even known what wikipedia is!), I don't have time to do the restore.

So I apologize to the editor who made the changes (e.g. the additional quote by an American author that Germany's WWI infiltration tactics were a solution to a "philosophical problem").

So, fellow editor, accept my apologies. I will try to return to it later and correct my unintentional out-reverts.

PainMan (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

"Blitzkrieg" doesn`t mean "Lightning war" in fact it is derived from "blitzschnell" which means "quick like a lightning strike" and from "Krieg" which means "war". Therefore "Blitzkrieg" means a war which ist quick like a lightning strike. Kersti Nebelsiek (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Terror

Surely the terrorising of civilains addresses the need to paralyse the enemy (as already discussed in the article)? The air force terrorised the civilian population, which took to the roads and hampered enemy forces in counter-attacking. It also confused the enemy into knowing what would come next, and where. Peterlewis (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing was not a part of Blitzkrieg. Air power was actually never covered in the Bewergungskrieg doctrine as divised by the German staff (supposedly Guderian etc)in the 1930s. To state that it was a part of Blitzkrieg is misleading. Blitzkrieg has no official parameters or doctrine on the use of air power. The Bombing of Belgrade was revenge for its withdrawal from the Axis camp. Guernca was a test, and Warsaw and Rotterdam were improvised assaults to get things moving and to try and force the enemy to surrender as was the British Blitz. It was not a part of "Blitzkrieg" as we understand it. Air powers use was "officially" limited to direct ground or interdiction attacks. Dapi89 (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Spanish Civil War and the bombing of Guerinca has nothing to do with Blitzkrieg. Dapi89 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that terror is not to be mentioned. If the article defines blitzkrieg as one doctrine perceived by the western allies based on actual German application, then... Why leave out actual use of terror tactics? The western powers would certainly perceive the communicated threat of bombing civilian cities as part of "terror tactics"/"any means necessary". (The act in itself needs not be used if the threat of it works. Note what this article says about Utrecht. ) Whatever Guderian thought in the thirties is of secondary importance, as long as the perception of blitzkrieg does not originate with him... We need to mention him as theorist behind much of the new concepts the west tried to define, but there were certainly others who had a say. I am not sure whom the entirety of German 1940s tactics should be attributed to, that is for more competent people. --Krekling (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because "Blitzkrieg" is not a military doctrine. It is not official. The Germans did not call their methods Blitzkrieg and "terror" was not a part of their method. It was improvised at the last moment, during combat. Mentioning terror implies Blitzkrieg was an official military doctrine that developed preconceived terror tactics. None of that is true. Dapi89 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4