Blitzkrieg is a myth

[parser]

German Blitzkrieg has entered people's consciousness as an effective strategy, but it is merely a legend inflated by historians. In reality, other factors played a predominant role in victories over Germany, such as industrial production and strong intelligence.
The myth of the German Blitzkrieg and its importance has led to the creation of numerous gaming strategies based on this concept. This has distorted the perception of history and underestimated other strategic approaches in games.
The exaggeration of the significance of the German Blitzkrieg has diverted attention from the actions of the Allies and other participants in the war, potentially misrepresenting the balance of power and leading to erroneous conclusions.

[Immortalis]

Once again, no.

German blitzkrieg is a very real thing. A very real thing that is being teached at military accademy around the world and has been the lynchpin of any war planning exercises for the past 80 years.

Here's a brief extract from the speech given to graduating West Point cadets back in 2018 from Marine Corps Gen. Dunford, explicitly mentioning how:

The allies in World War II failed to grasp the revolutionary nature of the German blitzkrieg mixture of armor with close air support

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1533051/chairman-stresses-change-tradition-at-west-point-graduation/

The only thing that is mistaken in the collective immagination is that the Germans did not just deployed hundreds of tanks. That was not the great innovation.

The innovation was in the way they deployed those tanks, as parts of dedicated formations (whilst the rest of the world still thought of them as infantry support vehicles), supported by a dedicated air force and trained to work in tandem.

And that is well represented in the game since air power is the single most powerful tool you can deploy to win battles and wars. Red air makes any push extremely hard and expensive, green air makes any push work like a hot knife through butter.


Granted, intelligence played a large role in the later years of the war and mostly on the side of the Allied. Germany and the Soviet Union did not buy into the intelligence game that much.
In fact, the German offensive in Poland, the invasion of Norway, the Bliztkrieg through the Low Counties and the subsequent invasion of France were supported by remarkably little intelligence, if any at all. To put it simply, they didn't need it because they already had the doctrinal, strategic and tactical edge and no amount of intelligence gathered by the other side would eliminate that advantage.

But once again you make the vaguest of accusations, provide little to no argument, have absolutely no analysis to support your conclusion.... it's becoming a trademark really, you should think about patenting it...

[mk11]

German military doctrine was an effective operational tactic. Like most effective strategies it exploited errors in the enemies' thinking.

@Immortalis

(whilst the rest of the world still thought of them as infantry support vehicles)

This isn't fair. At least, the UK considered there to be a role as infantry support and another role as cruiser tanks that formed their own armoured division. Different tank designs were made for these two roles, the Matilda was a good design and the Cruiser MK11 and MKIII were rubbish designs.

[Maya-Neko]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

German Blitzkrieg has entered people's consciousness as an effective strategy, but it is merely a legend inflated by historians.

Everyone can make such a claim, but it's the explanation and even more importantly the proofs, that solidify these claims.

And as for reality, these days armies know, what a Blitzkrieg is and can plan ahead to prevent it, maybe even counter it if executed poorly (especially since these days radios are commonly used everywhere, but not necessarily back then). It's not a strategy that always wins, but at the same time isn't useless as well if the enemy isn't prepared for it or lacks the military powers to build a proper defensive line quick enough. And in a time, where the horror of WW1 was still in everyones mind it is just natural to develop tactics to prevent the trench wars again.

As for the game, keep in mind that it is mostly developed for our fun, so things might be stronger or weaker compared to real life to make the game more balanced, but the biggest advantage is obviously, that you can replay stuff and improve your strategies and find explots and concentrate on it in the next game, something which RL obviously doesn't have so it's sometimes hard to predict, why a specific strategy was strong or weak, if it isn't used today anymore.

[Immortalis]

Originally posted by mk11:

German military doctrine was an effective operational tactic. Like most effective strategies it exploited errors in the enemies' thinking.

@Immortalis

(whilst the rest of the world still thought of them as infantry support vehicles)

This isn't fair. At least, the UK considered there to be a role as infantry support and another role as cruiser tanks that formed their own armoured division. Different tank designs were made for these two roles, the Matilda was a good design and the Cruiser MK11 and MKIII were rubbish designs.

Not really. The British Army in the 30s focused its doctrine on what was essentially the repeat of the later stages of WW1.

Infantry divisions would be charged to make the breakthrough in the enemy's lines, supported as needed by armoured divisions; and once that breakthrough was achieved the "mobile divisions" (essentially motorised infantry) would pour in and exploit the opening.

The Germans were light years ahead and were pretty much the only country in the world that conceived tanks in a role that was entirely independent from the standard infantry divisions: armoured divisions would not create breakthroughs for the infantry to exploit, they would be the one exploiting those opening themselves.


Granted, the development of the bliztkrieg doctrine was the result of several factor, not the least of which was the fact that they knew what did not work the last time and were determined not to repeat the same mistakes; plus, whilst France, Britain and the USA were largely convinced that the Great War truly had been "the war that would end all wars", Germany practically started planning for the next war the minute the cannons fell silent.
And whilst Versailles did limit their ability to actually place boots, wheels and threads on the ground, it did nothing to limit theoretical exercises.

Regardless, OP's statement that "blitzkrieg did not exist" is complete and utter lunacy.

[SkibidiToiletGroyper]

blitzkrieg did not exist.

[johnknott]

Blitzkrieg was a highly effective strategy. But the Allies (who were using blitzkrieg themselves in the end) outstripped Germany's industrial output (partly because they were very good at destroying Germany's industry).

Basically they were both using it but if you've got more of the tools (planes, guns, tanks and men), you're probably going to win.

[Karlack26]

they just call it combined arms and mobile warfare now.

[Zerian VySil]

I think Gondwa is a myth

[HB]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

German Blitzkrieg has entered people's consciousness as an effective strategy, but it is merely a legend inflated by historians.

So all the historians are wrong, when they explain highly effective German operational, ( its not strategic, its operational) method of waging war, who would have thought everyone but you was wrong.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

In reality, other factors played a predominant role in victories over Germany, such as industrial production and strong intelligence.

Inferior production levels was one of the reasons why Blitzkrieg was adopted, to succeed over superior production capable enemies before the resource imbalance of production could shape the outcome against the inferior resource based Reich. AH et all all knew this from the High command Logistics and Intelligence service and acted on it.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

The myth of the German Blitzkrieg and its importance has led to the creation of numerous gaming strategies based on this concept.

Your confusing historical facts of WW2 German methodology, (which are not myths) used in reality with post war gaming strategies, that are abstractions of it. Germany ran a series of wargames, under V Paulus ( best case saw them in Moscow in Dec and unable hold it due to lack of resources ) using blitzkrieg methodology, and its intel of SU force levels, to work ouit how many formations and what type it would need to win in a 8 to 13 blitzkrieg was in the East. Its intel of SU forces levels was absurdly wrong, and Germany went to war with insufficient force ratios to do as it planned and was stuck in long war it had not pre prepared adequately for. Blitzkrieg in WW2 was merly the latest iteration of the same principles of resource inferior nations seeking success over larger ones by superior application of methods and resources, so Philip of Macedonia was able to defeat larger resource based greek coalitions and Alexander defeat the largest empire, manpower and resource wise, the western world had seen by the speed and use of the resources human and material he had. German theorists at Staff college studded carthage and how inferior numbers could envelope and destroy completely whole armies in battle of annihilation.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

This has distorted the perception of history and underestimated other strategic approaches in games.

Nope, all of human militarily history supports its use as historical fact in many eras. Alexander and Philips hammer and anvil tactical use of cav was the same concept in ww2 tanks, just the technology changed.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

The exaggeration of the significance of the German Blitzkrieg has diverted attention from the actions of the Allies and other participants in the war, potentially misrepresenting the balance of power and leading to erroneous conclusions.

Nope, erroneous conclusions are what your posting, and thats been the limit of your ability to post them.

[HB]

Originally posted by Zerian VySil:

I think Gondwa is a myth

What he posts is certainly mythical. Not a single supporting fact in support of his many nonsensical claims

[Shad1902]

indeed Blitzkrieg is a myth...because it's called "Bewegungskrieg".

[HB]

Originally posted by Shad1902:

indeed Blitzkrieg is a myth...because it's called "Bewegungskrieg".

https://panzerworld.com/blitzkrieg

[parser]

The excessive and exclusive focus on "blitzkrieg" in games, along with the exaggerated praise of this tactic, greatly distorts people's perspectives! Games that depict the mythical concept of "blitzkrieg" shape players' distorted perception of real warfare, disregarding the complexities and the need for diverse strategies while overshadowing the intricacies of actual war. For instance, the Allies' superior industrial potential create larger military forces, ultimately leading to Germany's defeat. Additionally, strong intelligence Allies offered crucial information that helped them adapt their strategies and withstand Germany's assault.

[HB]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

The excessive and exclusive focus on "blitzkrieg" in games, along with the exaggerated praise of this tactic, greatly distorts people's perspectives!

It has in yours perhaps. the rest of us, not so much.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

Games that depict the mythical concept of "blitzkrieg" shape players' distorted perception of real warfare, disregarding the complexities and the need for diverse strategies while overshadowing the intricacies of actual war.

There is no myth and players of HOi can and do, adopt different operational modes to reach the goal of victory.

Originally posted by Gondwa:

For instance, the Allies' superior industrial potential create larger military forces, ultimately leading to Germany's defeat.

Potential that is not realised because you have been defeated before you can bring it to bear, or the the material resource is denied to you so you cant use it, is different from what is actually achieved from the potential. To move from peace to wartime usage of GDP is several years to see max return from the investment, so conflicts that are settled in a military and or political outcome, in a relataivly short time can and did negate allied potential.

So when Germany gains the GDP potential of all the countries it defeats by blitzkrieg it gains control of the potential and removes it from allied potential, so in 39 when AH dows Poland the allied GDP advantage was c2.5 to 1 against him, so a war looks most likley to be lost, but when Russia goes neutral and trades wholesale with then Reich, and after AH gains the low countys, France Norway Greece Balkans etc, Romania Bulgaria etc join him it looks like he will win as now the GDP advantage is with the Axis powers, in 41 before invading russia he looks like winner economical potential is on his side, this again changes back to Allied advantage when SU and USA come in on the allied side and they returned to more thana 2:1 advantage, which grew to 5:1 by wars end.

Germany failed to use its potential in GDP it acquired to prosecute a long war of attrition, the allies succeeded in restoring and using the GDP advantage it started out with to grub out the Reich.

Lastly, WSC understood the war would be won by production, just like in ww1, AH did not, he thought the will to win would be enough, WSC was right, again, and did not change how he intended to truimph.

I dont see that you have a working knowledge of ww2.

[parser]

Originally posted by HB:

You love myths, they make life easier... until...