Can you educate me on infamous Wehrmacht tactics in WW2, /his/?
I mean I know 'Blitzkrieg' which is striking the enemy unexpectedly very hard and to rush in as fast as possible to avoid getting into a trench war like Europeans did in WW1 (correct me if I'm wrong).
But besides that is there anything else?
None of their manuals or handbooks contained the word Blitzkrieg and there's really no coherent doctrine of it. Guderian said it was the Allies that came up with it.
What was called Blitzkrieg was the latest in combined arms.
Infantry, tanks and aircraft were coordinated and deployed all together.
Only the Germans began the war with radios in every tank. They needed this technology to actually support all of this theoretical stuff.
>>1003973
Heavy tanks like the tiger along with motor infantry like the waffen ss allowed for extremely concintrated force, the best strategy of the Germans was to punch through two points in a line then encircle a pocket of men who would surrender or starve.
Play hearts of iron 3 or watch sone videos of it.
Ask more direct questions and I'll try to answer
>>1004079
Except that the heavy tanks like the Tigers didn't exist when the Germans were on the offensive and their actual offensives were done by using their armor and motorized elements as exploitation forces, not breakthrough forces.
You might not want to get your idea of tactics and operations from video games.
>>1004079
>Play hearts of iron 3 or watch sone videos of it.
my sides
>>1004079
>Ask more direct questions and I'll try to answer
>>1004079
>motor infantry like the waffen ss
holy shit he literally thinks HoI3 is real history.
Have CAS fighter/bombers strike at enemy formations and logistics in advance of and during attacks.
Armor forms the spearhead for advances and are organized into pure armor task forces instead if being interspersing armor with regular infantry.
Infantry advances into the gaps created by armor and holds territory instead of advancing with armor.
>>1003973
Bomb everything
Send tanks in to crush resistance
Then send infantry to occupy
Repeat for about a month and you get a gourment-style french occupation government
Serve cold
>>1004079
t. Johan
pls buy stellaris
>>1003973
It's kinda of the natural extension of combined arms as >>1004015 said.
Artillery, working closely with bombers would soften the enemy position. Airborne infantry would capture key fortifications to prevent a fortified defense. Mobilized infantry and tanks would then break through the weakened position.
Once the motorized forces broke through, they would maneuver to position themselves behind the bulk of enemy forces and the enemy would be encircled by the advance of slower infantry, and the motorized forces behind them.
At this point, the germans could just bomb them into submission from all vantage points. Or something like that.
>>1004015
But there was a doctrine that is referred to as the schwerpunkt or centre of gravity doctrine. Based on stormtrooper tactics from WWI, it involved using concentrated armor formations to breakthrough and hit the enemy rear.
When they encircled an enemy unit or a city they used railway guns to shoot in bodies of alive Jews into the pocket. Look up the Dora gun, it could fire a bundle of five Jews, two German communists, three gypsies and a transvestite at once at the enemy. This way they could spread illnesses but usually the enemy surrendered immediately due to sheer terror. I think the History Channel did a dok on this if you want to find out more.
>>1003973
pretty much just logistics
>Call in the Luftwaffe
>Luft their waffes
>Call in some regimental arty
>To regiment their positions
>Send in the Panzerkorp and mechanized branches
>Infantry behind
>If it's still early to mid WWII Fallschirmjagers are already there
>Probably at a different objective but that's beside the point
>Strike at probed weak point
>Pile in until you gain a foothold
>Move up frontlines
>Rinse and repeat until Fuhrur Fuckface decides to invade Russia in the winter
>>1003973
Recent theories point out the fact that none of this so-called tactic was planned out and it was merely the result of the impatience and temerity of the officers of the Wehrmacht.
>>1005936
they are not "recent theories" as much as they are literally the words of the Germans themselves from immediately after the war (or indeed during, as "Blitzkrieg" does not appear in their records)
Reminder of bitching uniforms.
That said, isn't this 'Lightning warfare' just attacking with everything at the same time, which caught people off guard?
>They're shelling us.. This too shall pass.
>Tanks? What the fuck we're still being bombed
Kampfgruppes and Elastic defense was what defined much of the Wehrmacht, not Blitzkrieg. German Generals were impressively insightful considering their situation.
One General, Gerd von Rundstedt's own cousin Gotthard 'Poison Dwarf' Heinrici was renown for his defensive foresight and could accurately foresee every move the Soviets made. The Soviets would shell his lines, but there would be no German troops in the line. He pulled them way back.
When the Soviets advanced, they found themselves facing unscathed German defenders who would rush right back into their positions like nothing had happened.
Like Model, he was the sort of General who should have been placed in charge of the Africa campaign, not fucking Erwin 'What the fuck are supply lines' Rommel.
>>1005975
>That said, isn't this 'Lightning warfare' just attacking with everything at the same time, which caught people off guard?
No, not at all. It is the concentration of maximum force to a single point on the line of contact, (as opposed to trying to maximize force over the entire line) achieving a breakthrough somewhere, and having mobile reserves on hand to rush through the gap and chew up through the second echelon stuff to the rear of the enemy. It's not just "hit em harder".
>>1006009
>Heinrici had two children, Hartmut and Gisela, with his wife Gertrude. As a devoted Catholic, his religious faith and his refusal to join the Nazi Party made him unpopular among the Nazi hierarchy. Because Heinrici's wife Gertrude had a Jewish parent, their children were labelled Mischlinge (partly Jewish) under Nazi racial law. However, Heinrici received a "German Blood Certificate" from Hitler himself, which validated their supposed "Aryan" status and protected them from discrimination.
He never forgot that humiliation of his family and remained avowedly against Hitler and the Nazis.
>>1006016
>In late 1943, Göring had Heinrici placed in a convalescent home in Karlsbad on the pretext of "ill health", allegedly for refusing to set fire to Smolensk in accordance with the Wehrmacht's scorched earth policy. Heinrici reportedly claimed that had Smolensk been burned to the ground he would not have been able to withdraw his troops through it.
He keeps getting cooler and cooler as I read his wiki article. Him and Von Rundstedt were utter cunts to Hitler whenever they could get away with it.
>>1006026
Dude everyone knows Hitler was basically a puppet for every of his generals and advisors. He was a tool and is widely recognised as a terrible military leader.
>>1006049
Hitler was played hard by especially Britain. You should probably educate yourself from neutral sources, not your history teach who gets off by shittalking Hitler.
He wasn't a genius, but he called the right shots for the most part. One big fuck up is letting British troops retreat out of France. Came back to bite him in the ass. He couldn't have known Britain was so dead set on not negotiating anything.
>>1006049
Hitler pitted all his Military services, Wehrmacht leadership and Party against each other so there would be no clear opposition to him. Yeah... I'm sure the Generals were in control of him. That's why they allowed things like Kursk, Stalingrad, and the Ardennes offensive to happen
>>1006457
If there was one person that perhaps controlled him, it would have been Goebbels. Albert Speer's memoirs talk about how after the Fall of France, Hitler would frequently go over to the Goebbels home at all hours and each time Hitler would come back more vehement against the Jews and more and more inclined to go to war against Stalin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics
>>1003973
>Fight armies that haven't mobilised properly
>Outmanoeuvre them
That's literally it
>>1006560
Hard to believe this thinking was revolutionary
>>1006560
France hadn't mobilized properly?
>>1006549
thx mi familia
>>1006596
nailed it, bro
it was bully tactics on unprepared populaces
and the retribution was the wholesale rape of pretty much every German girl and woman when the push back came as the Nazi leaders were blowing their own brains out
a Blitzkrieg of the mind, you might say
>>1003973
>emphasis on radio coordination between units
>units can act on their own initiative
>much efficient logistics
>luftwaffe
>>1006698
France mobilized but tanks were spread in infantry divisions as support tanks, not in armored columns or divisions. In reality, French tanks were better than German tanks and more numerous.
>doctrine matters
>>1003973
Capturing of Eben Emael, a belgian stronghold by 30-60 paratroops. It took 48 hours for them to subdue a 1000 strong belgian concrete fortification with use of special explosives. One of the most shocking victories of Germans in the beginning.
>>1003973
Former armyfag, read these books
Truppenführung (the German Army's manual)
Also Steel Wind by David T. Zabeki
Germany's so called "genius" lay in combined arms tactics. Read the above books for in depth detail. The Germans were merely repeating the same historical lessons on operational manuever and speed that have been around forever. From Alexander to Caesar,Gustavus Adolphus to Napoleon. Neither is the approach to war they chose unqiue. Their particular history and strategic location forced them into this kind of warfare. The only innovation they made was to mechanize it.
>>1004079
On a crude level, this guy is right. Mock him as you will but HOI3 gives the right general idea.
>>1006049
>Hitler was a puppet
>Rommel's rise was due to Hitler
Dafuq are you saying
Danny S. Parker
Hitler's Ardennes Offensive – The German View of the Battle of the Bulge
its better to see each operation itself instead of theorycrafting
>>1003973
Blitzkrieg is a strategy rather than a tactic, as it drives the choices Germany for most of the early war.
Tactics would be maneuvers made during a battle.
Anyway, Blitzkrieg was about trying to avoid trench warfare...in a way. More accurately it was about trying to secure victory for Germany as fast as possible. Germany simply couldn't outlast the allies in a drawn out war. SO the objective of Blitzkrieg was to take as much territory as possible, as fast as possible, thus forcing the allies into surrendering as fast as possible.
>>1007321
>France mobilized but tanks were ... not in armored columns or divisions.
But they were.
>>1007552
Nope.
>>1007589
Still nope. They're much different from German panzer divisions and still used as infantry support role.
Further reading:
History of the Second World War - Liddel Hart.
>>1006421
The Eternal Anglo
>>1006013
This.
It should also be considered that this only works if the officers are trained to achieve their objectives autonomously in regards to >>1006549.
What made this means of fighting effective is that it's very Clausewitzian, in the sense that it considers what Clausewitz called the "frictions" or "fog of war". Clausewitz held the belief that war could not be planned right into the last detail on a map, since there are too many unknown factors involved which ruin any kind of planning. In order to counter that, the high command can only present people the operational and strategic objectives, while the men directly charge of the fighting are best suited to find the solution to this.
Blitzkrieg is essentially just another step in these sorts of developments that have been around in German warfare since the late 19th century, and technically, the German military had already by the end of WW1 developed most of the components of it. Defence-in-depth, is yet another of these Clausewitzian tactics, in the regard that it is an offensive type of defence that adapts to the situation at hand. Since these tactics turned out to be quite effective, it gave the German officers the confidence to even consider going into WW2, with the false belief that tactics alone could win them a world war.
Problems that arose in the second half of WW2 were less an issue of the tactics themselves but more of unrealistic goals, in the regard that the time schedules were too tight, supply lines being overstretched, troops spread too thin, etc. - making the whole thing essentially completely Anti-Clausewitzian again, since it goes against anything he advises - although understandable, since Germany was losing strategically, and couldn't maintain a lengthy war, proving them wrong in the regard that wars of such scale could be won through tactics alone.
1. Use amphetamines
2. Face-off against far inferior forces (France, Poland, Balkans, etc.)
3. ?????
4. Mythologize your effectiveness.
>>1003973
>I mean I know 'Blitzkrieg' which is striking the enemy unexpectedly very hard and to rush in as fast as possible to avoid getting into a trench war like Europeans did in WW1 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Totally wrong.
Germans didn't invent anything new. They've applied the lessons learned from 1st and last year of WW1 and the Eastern front of the same war which is something basically everybody else at the time did, it was all just lost in cryonism(it hit French especially), budget cuts(Great Britain) and purges(Soviet Union).
The 1915, 1916 and 1917 on western front were important lesson but they shouldn't be, in no way, seen as something "normal".
>>1007321
Not exactly. People tend to parrot it but they don't realise something more important.
French ignored Ardennes, they thought that those 6 roads that went through it are not enough to launch full-scale offensive.
Except when the traffic jams happened, they didn't redirect all their airforce from low countries to bomb them to hell and when the jams unloaded, they've had no reserves because all the best, most mobile and well-equipped divisions were tied in Belgium.
>>1007321
France mobilized late. They were expecting Belgium to mobilize first, since that was the consideration of not extending the Maginot Line on the border.
Belgium didn't really mobilize so France was forced to scramble. Made worse was that the Germans came through where nobody thought they could.
Fun fact: France had committed the most money per soldier than any other participant at the start of the war.
>all these French apologists ITT
They still surrendered after two fucking weeks. Poland held out longer while being invaded by USSR from the east for fuck's sake.
>>1008271
>They still surrendered after two fucking weeks.
But they did not?
>>1008271
>Poland held out longer while being invaded by USSR from the east for fuck's sake.
And it did not...
>>1008271
>invaded by USSR
USSR just stepped in to defend the citizens of Western Belarus and Ukraine from the Nazi threat as the government that was supposed to protect them was jumping ship to Britain like the cowards they were.
>>1008271
>French apologists
The BEF was right there with them in Belgium where it mattered, and they fucked up just as badly.
>>1008178
Explain how France was so inferior.
>>1008736
>pants-on-head retarded doctrine
>horrifically poor communications
>diluted numerical superiority by spreading everything out instead of concentrating force
>>1007350
>The only innovation they made was to mechanize it.
But it wasn't an innovation that they made. The Red Army was already holding large scale combined arms exercises before Germany made their first tanks in the interwar period.
>>1003973
In WW1, they came up with the idea of intersecting fields of fire for machine guns.
In WW2, they came up with the "machine covers rifle infantry while they flank".
