Blitzkrieg in Hearts of Iron 4

[parser]

Video games, especially those dealing with historical events, often become a source of myth-making about history. In HoI4, players can use tanks and aircraft to achieve swift victories, reflecting the common misconception of blitzkrieg as an all-powerful military strategy. The success of the German campaign in 1940 was the result of a complex application of all types of troops, not just tanks and aircraft. HoI4, by focusing on mechanized divisions and air support, overlooks the significance of infantry, logistics, reconnaissance, and other critically important aspects of warfare. This simplification not only distorts historical reality but also affects players’ perception of military strategy. In HoI4, blitzkrieg is presented as almost the only correct path to victory, which is a gross oversimplification of historical facts. In reality, blitzkrieg was not so much an innovation as it was an adaptation and evolution of military art, based on the lessons of World War I. It’s important for game developers to be aware of their role in shaping historical consciousness and to avoid spreading myths that can take root in the public’s mind.

[Immortalis]

Oh, it's you again!

Are you sure you don't want to criticise the game based on the amount of steel that goes into rifles, compared to what goes into tanks or battleships? No? Right...

First of all, the success of the German campaign in 1940 was the result of many complex things, things that are always factoring into war: quality of equipment, training of troops (both in terms of foot soldiers, NCOs and officers), intelligence, conduct of the enemy (which in this case was so sure of its defense that it did not even consider any other possibility) etc etc.
*However*, the novelty it introduced was precisely the application of tanks and air force in a combined arms assault for the first time ever in history; sure, it was followed by infantry and even more infantry was stationed along the Rhine to keep an eye on the French, sure it used artillery, sure they conducted recon on the enemies etc etc but that was not the new shiny toy around.

And, if anything, Blitzkrieg as a concept of war of maneuver is more of an evolution of the Napoleonic doctrine of concentration of force rather than any lesson learned from the fields of WW1, where the only practical application of tanks was to provide coverage for infantry walking no man's land and going over the enemy's trenches.


And if you draw your knowledge of history, let alone military tactics, from a game as if it was The Book, the fault lies squarely with you.

[mk11]

Have you played HOI IV? Seems infantry, logistics, recon, all play quite importantly in the game.

[lakupupu]

i almost forgot you were still in the background, arguing that blitzkrieg wasn't a thing
this has been done so many times and you've been told hundreds of times precisely where in your line of thought you went wrong, but you come back up yelling the same with even more fervor than before
you really try to paint this thing you do as "helping to prevent the spread of dangerous myths" and "dispelling propaganda" but all it ends up being is.. let's say it... ignoring everything from the history and the game to all opposition to what you say (making fancy statements and providing half-assed proof or nothing)

so, tanks and air working the way they do in game (and in real life, AS MUCH AS history) is... "reflecting the common misconception of Blitzkrieg" what? you end up kind of on the correct line of thought with the deduction that germany's battlefield victories were from good application of what they had on hand (tanks, air, radio communication) but then it's mudded up by whatever you say after

secondly, in this game, because you can go tank-only against the AI and still win, its inaccurate? ignoring the world where you do that, what's the point here? AI is bad? history is wrong?
the meaning of what you say with "too much tank focus!" dilutes with every time you repeat it

out of this small list of yours, at high levels of play against the game's own AI, yes, reconnaissance is useless because you'll probably be able to make a jack of all trades division or otherwise know what the AI is doing (knowing their templates, knowing small tricks to get increased info etc.)
but what about when you go up against experienced players? does recon matter there, in MP? have you played MP against others?
but.. infantry and logistics do still play a role in this game, and i genuinely dont understand what possesses you to say that especially with little proof
you are untrustworthy enough in these threads that i would ask you to define "other critically important aspects of warfare" as a full list rather than saying it and hoping it works

and the "only path to victory" if we're going to be fair then not exactly. nothing in the game is telling you to go and create huge tank forces, you can even roleplay ww1 and throw men into the grinder to push as one example.
was blitzkrieg an extension of lessons learned from world war I, as much as it was lessons learned through history (napoleonic wars and the mobility of his forces) and prussian/german militarism, combined with simple thoughts like "maybe we should use this metal box on treads further" - i would like to hear your thoughts on that as well..

anyone reading this thread, OP has a history of making these kinds of threads where he ignores all counter-arguments, straight up lies and spreads misinformation, probably disinformation by this point

[parser]

The concept of blitzkrieg applied in 1940 was nothing new and did not significantly contribute to the success of the German campaign. It was merely a repetition of already known tactics, and the real reason for success lay in the complete underestimation by the Allies of the situation and their inability to adequately respond to changes on the battlefield. Tanks and aviation were not used more effectively than in World War I, and their role was exaggerated. In reality, traditional infantry and artillery had much greater significance, and the tactic of blitzkrieg was just a marketing move to add luster to ordinary military operations

[lakupupu]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

The concept of blitzkrieg applied in 1940 was nothing new and did not significantly contribute to the success of the German campaign. It was merely a repetition of already known tactics, and the real reason for success lay in the complete underestimation by the Allies of the situation and their inability to adequately respond to changes on the battlefield. Tanks and aviation were not used more effectively than in World War I, and their role was exaggerated. In reality, traditional infantry and artillery had much greater significance, and the tactic of blitzkrieg was just a marketing move to add luster to ordinary military operations

this is a response so vague and generic that i have to ask if you're actually using chatgpt for this
and not just vague and generic, but legit ignoring history

a statement as big as "blitzkrieg wasn't new and did nothing in 1940" is really shifting the burden of proof towards you
so, if they hadn't used tanks, but instead marched infantry all the time, marched infantry through the ardennes (of course coupled with artillery bombardment) maybe coupled with air support, what would've happened? what would have happened to german ground troops operating without tanks? would there have been fast clearings or a thorough advance?

please define "already known tactics"
please define "not used more effectively than in world war I" - this is the statement that interests me the most. it does lead back into your "blitzkrieg doesnt exist" rationale of thought but it still falls apart
please define "marketing move - infantry and artillery had greater significance"

while we're at it, define the word "blitzkrieg", im curious how you see it

all you post becomes more and more nonsensical and unintelligible as time goes on. please, mate. change up your chatgpt prompts at least

[why]

Old man yells at cloud.
More news at 11.

[parser]

Originally posted by lakupupu:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep11957.7.pdf

[luftatmer]

Omg it is him again. With his one and only topic he is bringing again and again every so often.

Doesn’t it get even boring for you, Thread-opener ?

[Жмых]

yes

[mk11]

In August 1914 Germany had some success with a rapid advance but became bogged down. In 1940 they did not become bogged down.

What were the factors that made a difference? I suggest:
- radios
- that exploiting with reliable tanks means you don't get stopped by small forces in the way
- improved recon capabilities

[ZenFlakes56]

When will you be banned?

Also put his post into an AI detector lol

[parser]

Originally posted by mk11:

World government agreement. More redneck questions?

[Uniformwalk3]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

Video games, especially those dealing with historical events, often become a source of myth-making about history. In HoI4, players can use tanks and aircraft to achieve swift victories, reflecting the common misconception of blitzkrieg as an all-powerful military strategy. The success of the German campaign in 1940 was the result of a complex application of all types of troops, not just tanks and aircraft. HoI4, by focusing on mechanized divisions and air support, overlooks the significance of infantry, logistics, reconnaissance, and other critically important aspects of warfare. This simplification not only distorts historical reality but also affects players’ perception of military strategy. In HoI4, blitzkrieg is presented as almost the only correct path to victory, which is a gross oversimplification of historical facts. In reality, blitzkrieg was not so much an innovation as it was an adaptation and evolution of military art, based on the lessons of World War I. It’s important for game developers to be aware of their role in shaping historical consciousness and to avoid spreading myths that can take root in the public’s mind. [/quoteShut the ♥♥♥♥ up ye nerdy nerd 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓

[Uniformwalk3]

Originally posted by Gondwa:

Video games, especially those dealing with historical events, often become a source of myth-making about history. In HoI4, players can use tanks and aircraft to achieve swift victories, reflecting the common misconception of blitzkrieg as an all-powerful military strategy. The success of the German campaign in 1940 was the result of a complex application of all types of troops, not just tanks and aircraft. HoI4, by focusing on mechanized divisions and air support, overlooks the significance of infantry, logistics, reconnaissance, and other critically important aspects of warfare. This simplification not only distorts historical reality but also affects players’ perception of military strategy. In HoI4, blitzkrieg is presented as almost the only correct path to victory, which is a gross oversimplification of historical facts. In reality, blitzkrieg was not so much an innovation as it was an adaptation and evolution of military art, based on the lessons of World War I. It’s important for game developers to be aware of their role in shaping historical consciousness and to avoid spreading myths that can take root in the public’s mind.

shut the ♥♥♥♥ up ye nerdy nerd 🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓 actually i think thats made by Chatgpt not you

[ZenFlakes56]

Originally posted by shooturd311:

Originally posted by Gondwa:

Video games, especially those dealing with historical events, often become a source of myth-making about history. In HoI4, players can use tanks and aircraft to achieve swift victories, reflecting the common misconception of blitzkrieg as an all-powerful military strategy. The success of the German campaign in 1940 was the result of a complex application of all types of troops, not just tanks and aircraft. HoI4, by focusing on mechanized divisions and air support, overlooks the significance of infantry, logistics, reconnaissance, and other critically important aspects of warfare. This simplification not only distorts historical reality but also affects players’ perception of military strategy. In HoI4, blitzkrieg is presented as almost the only correct path to victory, which is a gross oversimplification of historical facts. In reality, blitzkrieg was not so much an innovation as it was an adaptation and evolution of military art, based on the lessons of World War I. It’s important for game developers to be aware of their role in shaping historical consciousness and to avoid spreading myths that can take root in the public’s mind.

actually i think thats made by Chatgpt not you

It is.