Talk:Blitzkrieg

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Blitzkrieg is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Oldpeerreview

Contents

1 Old talk 2 Precursor section 3 Blitzkrieg != war of manuver 4 Inaccurate changes 5 Application by Allies 6 Inaccurate changes 2 7 Request for comments 8 Introductory Edits. 9 Factual accuracy dispute 10 In U.S. blitzkrieg has a broader meaning 11 cruiser tanks/british influence and german influence on british 12 Dispute over what? 13 Russia != Soviet Union 14 Blitzkrieg 15 theory/etymology section 16 Northern Africa 17 Auftragstaktik 18 Superior

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)

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 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)

Blitzkrieg != war of manuver

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 manuver. War of manuver 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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9660443&oldid=9660315) :) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9355425&oldid=9187571) 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9355425&oldid=9187571)

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)

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 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&hl=en&q=define%3A+blitzkrieg) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9944015&oldid=9943274). 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172&diff=0) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9698469&oldid=9688328).

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

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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9743113&oldid=9740324), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9927872&oldid=9927431), [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9944015&oldid=9943274), [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9953960&oldid=9952386), [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=9972337&oldid=9972176). 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 1926.⁵

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: [8] (http://www.stormingmedia.us/80/8052/A805293.html),[9] (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/070061074X/kradegbookreview/103-9940095-3441436). 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

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=0&oldid=10240003). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blitzkrieg&diff=11506930&oldid=11417013) by an anon two days ago. Agree lightning war, no big deal. 119 05:03, 26 Mar 2005 (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)

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)