|
|
|
|
|
|
by petsfed
769 days ago
|
|
|
I think this is the correct analysis. In the context of the conversation, Blitzkrieg worked because it specifically avoided getting bogged down in heavily fortified urban areas. The German army of WWII was not at all suited to long battles like what they encountered in WWI (see the eastern front casualty numbers for a good illustration of how that went). Stalingrad (mentioned in the article) is rather famous for being a perfect urban battlefield to grind a massive and well equipped modern (for the time) army into pulp. They couldn't blitzkrieg it, and so it defeated them. The German Army ca. WWII's entire doctrine centered on (as podcaster Dan Carlin describes it) throwing a haymaker and ending the fight quickly. They by no means had a glass jaw, but compared to the Americans or (especially) the Soviets, they simply could not sustain a battle of attrition. And urban warfare so heavily favors the defenders that assaulting a city is almost always a battle of attrition. |
|
|
Folks forget that the French had rather excellent tanks ~1939 [0], especially in their calvary arms (the Hotchkiss H35 and SOMUA S35).
Which makes sense, since they essentially invented the modern tank in the FT. [1]
The rapid success of the Blitzkrieg was mostly a result of (a) France still being in the middle of re-organizing, equiping, and training their armored forces, (b) some bullshit at Sedan, and (c) French leadership making terrible strategic military decisions again and again [2].
Had the DCr's been supplied (who knew tanks need fuel?) and used to effectively counterattack, as designed, German plans would have ground to a halt.
Instead, you had the French Prime Minister declaring that all was lost six days after the Germans invaded the low countries.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_of_France#Inter_War
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#French_lead...