|Blitzkrieg is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 29, 2005.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.|
|Threads older than 200 days may be archived by.|
Failures of Blitzkrieg
Maybe add a section on why blitzkrieg failed. Lightning warfare failed because of the large territory. If they reformed their army or conjoined all units on certain positions then it would not have failed. Blitzkrieg was not made for mass invasions. Not Guderian nor Rommel's desert warfare would have been useful. One would need blitzkrieg only to gain an advantage, but if you used the russians mass invasion theory or the americans timing it would have worked. The Sherman m4 was highly degraded and ridiculed after the war, however the m4 showed performance or speed where the tiger did not. The Germans also lacked precision warfare as well as mass assault or mass invasion theory ala operation uranus, one example is the failure to create their own pearl harbor on the russian coastal fleet at the time, deciding to lay down mines instead (the russian fleet though was never a real threat, hence it will not be attacked..maybe it will be in ww3 because like napoleon and the brits before it, naval powers are regarded highly in rough waters, i could imagine this country has potential to be the greatest naval power in the world actually, give or take its inexperience, come november 2013 this may become reality hence countries with long coastlines would probably excel in this field via terrain albeit it all depends on how to destroy a fleet which sadly it never got a title of world naval power as of yet). Naturally older civilizations would do so, yet numbers doesn't always win as proof with hitler's mistake to invade russia late, japan's game of gongyo spoiled in the pacific raid where they missed key targets and the mistake of not taking moscow first or not using the mass invasion theory. The Russians had training for these upcoming events alright, about 100 years or so of military build up via the soviet union. The Blitzkrieg tactic can happen on land sea or air and never really failed actually because it is not long range attack. Its more like short range cover, but could be covered by long range nowadays with high-tech equip. Their naval fleet is def a sleeping giant and something to consider in future events in naval warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the current main picture in the article a fitting one? It is set in 1943 depicts Panzergrenadiers and a heavy Tiger I tank. I suppose a heavy tank and the year 1943 are not exactly classic with Blitzkrieg, even a Stuka wing would represent the subject better. Any ideas? --Pudeo' 20:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The ideal picture would be one of German armoured formations massing to attack in Poland, 1939 or France, 1940. I have looked around but have not yet found a good one in the commons. I think the picutre chosen is attempting to illustrate a combined arms assault, which is part of a blitzkrieg assault, certainly, but not the most important part. Kursk, though, is definitly not a good choice to depict a blitzkrieg. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Am I the only person who sees a problem with the language in the opening paragraph? To quote it "forces a breakthrough into the enemy's rear through a series of deep thrusts." Can someone please tame the innuendo, intended or not? I don't think it must be described using this exact verbiage. Twunchy (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are you serious? This is not a forum and trolling is not welcomed (jokes). On a serious note, those terms, according to the editor's edit summary, are the recurring terms used in describing the Blitzkrieg in the cited works. "Breakthrough", "deep thrusts", "dislocate", and so on. Personally, I've noticed those terms are commonly repeated in documentaries, article, etc, when describing the Blitzkrieg, and are somewhat standard Blitzkrieg terms. Judging from the edit summaries, the opening paragraph gives a faithful representation of the description provided in the cited works. I see no justification in altering them. Besides, if you look hard enough you can sniff out innuendo in any lengthy Wikipedia article. StoryEpic (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
On the use of the term Blitzkrieg
The term was used during the war in German publications http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GTw4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT317&lpg=PT317&dq=Milit%C3%A4r-Wochenblatt+1938+blitzkrieg&source=bl&ots=8_4-ZWK8gr&sig=T0gLX4vPYaw2xY7aVmmTipnHBuU&hl=es&sa=X&ei=1OXNUrfUFpKihgf4z4GIBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false --Bentaguayre (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
American Civil War and Blitzkrieg?
Notable recent additions by User:Harold Knudsen assert Blitzkrieg had origins in the American Civil War during the Battle of Chickamauga. Interesting, but it's not as much stated in the Chickamauga article, just the following:
- "Historian Harold Knudsen has described this deployment on a narrow front as similar to the style of the German Schwerpunkt in World War II, achieving an attacker/defender ratio of 8:1."
I would think most of what's been added to Blitzkrieg would belong there, but apparently it was added there, but reduced to just this by other Wikipedians.
As brilliant as Longstreet actions may have been, I don't see this as recognized as leading to Blitzkrieg, even by a minority of historians, other than Knudsen.
- We are really talking about maneuver warfare, where Blitzkrieg as practiced by the Germans in 1939-41 was a type. It seems to me the term Blitzkrieg should not be used in conjunction with the Civil War, as that is rather far afield from the Panzerwaffe and those men that developed its methods, which I believe is where this article should be focused. The maneuver warfare material would be better placed in its own article, where mentioning Longstreet's effort to disrupt and collapse a defensive position and exploit a breakthrough would not be out of place.Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Monroe, I agree with you that Longstreet's use of a schwerpunkt at Chickamauga did not lead to "Blitzkrieg" and I say that clearly in the addition I made in that section. But Blitzkrieg is really a slang term that probably encompasses a lot of aspects of combined arms warfare 1939-1941. As a military professional that trained with combined arms maneuver warfare for two decades, I would say many things since WWII would probably be labeled Blitzkrieg if the word was applied more liberally after WWII. American combined arms warfare of the 1970-90s is an updated version of many things often considered Blitzkrieg. I don’t see any real connection between the American Civil war and the word Blitzkrieg, but there are modern aspects of the American Civil war that carried forward in maneuver warfare, which are or were loosely termed Blitzkrieg. One such is Sherman’s March to the sea, and how his corps moved on spread out axis of advance. This is similar to how the German armies moved in their wheel into France in 1914, and also 1870. Cavalry tactics evolved from the Civil War into modern missions for the cavalry arm once it changed into a motorized arm – the missions of guard, screen, and reconnaissance are distinct roles for cavalry evolved in the Civil War. Aspects of these things were part of German operations 1939-1941 as well, and so fell under this larger label.
I am referring to Longstreet having arranged an attack formation that is similar to what transpired in the tactical level in the 20th century. That is a fact simply through comparison of where the units were placed, how by doing so created a force ratio advantage, which is what a schwerpunkt does, and so there is great similarity.
If there are sections, such as schwerpunkt, that provide some detail of parts of what came under the term, I think it is appropriate to show this 1863 comparison of a schwerpunkt in the schwerpunkt section of the article, because it is a large scale example of one from the 19th century. There were followers of the American Civil war in later decades that paid attention to successful tactics, operations, and strategies which were brought forward and tried at later times. I do not know if there is a thread we can connect from Longstreet to other military thinkers in Europe that eventually arrived in the minds of Hutier and Guderian for example, but aside from a link, it is still significant and worth showing this early one happened.
I think this article of Blitzkrieg should include the maneuver warfare trends of the time and where they came from in earlier periods, as part of the organization of the article. It’s a slang word that was not a hard fast doctrinal word in the German military, as the author of the Blitzkrieg Legend argues, so encompassing aspects that could fall under it as not too much of a stretch. I too have had the opportunity in my life to discuss with German WWII vets about the word, and they told me there was no such thing in military terminology in their training. It was something the media created.Harold Knudsen (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Blitzkreig is not not only maneuver warfare, it is a slang word for offensive armored warfare mostly. It is an operational level type thinking mostly that harnesses the mobility and range of tanks, and supports tanks with fire support from air and artillery, and also motorized infantry to take distant objectives. It uses maneuver warfare, schwerpunkt, and other components, and all the components have earlier origins. In my opinion, it might be a good thing to have examples of the components.Harold Knudsen (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am in no way criticizing your connection between Longstreet and Blitzkrieg; I'm not a qualified authority; it doesn't matter if I like your rationalization or not, or even if I understand it or not. It doesn't matter if anyone else on this talk page likes or understands it. Such debates belong in proper peer-reviewed publications on military science and history, not here.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, reporting the current, prevailing sourced information, not championing new theories. My only concern is about the prominence of this asserted connection between Longstreet and Blitzkrieg in this article. I don't see that it appears in any historical references beyond the single source. Unless new sources are given that echo this, showing it is at least a notable minority view, I don't think it belongs in the article, or at least not at such length and emphasis. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Need for editing
Currently, the section on General Longstreet and the Battle of Chickamauga contains this sentence fragment: "Demonstrating a level of operational thinking in selecting a target in the rear area of the Union Army with further pursuit that would effect both Union wings." This sentence no verb. Alas, I'm not sure just how to fix it, unless it started, "General Longstreet demonstrated..." If anybody knows just what the author intended, please make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDZeff (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)