Originally posted by Shotgun:
[b]Yes, it was more "broad" front rather than amassing forces at
critical point for break through right?Still, despite not adhering
strictly the blitzkrieg doctrines. However, the "over" emphasis on
blitzkrieg lead the allied forces down the wrong track, causing
them to come up with under-gunned tank designs like the
sherman.
Uh no,Guderian still advocates the mass concentration of tanks
used upon the weak points of enemy frontline to breakthrough it and
harass the rear of the enemy.
What differs btw Guderian's concept in the book i mentioned before
and blitzkrieg doctrine used by Germans in WW2 is that the latter
also does the cutting of the enemy units and encircling them,and
eventually the destruction comes,whereas Guderian's concept,it
seems to me,is more aligned with "Deep Battle" doctrine by the
Soviets.
And not to forget that the book by Guderian was written and printed
in 1937,2 years before the onset of WW2,thus not surprising if
there is any amendment to their doctrine.
The allies were so decieved and self deluded by blitzkrieg that
they believed that the Shermans didn have to outgun the enemy
tanks, since airpower would neutralise enemy tanks. Their tanks
just had to be fast.
It seems that this concept is akin to the British's "cruiser
tank" concept,as in the infantry tanks which have stronger armour
and firepower stick together with the infantry units whilst
fighting,and when a weak point of the enemy line had been found the
cruiser tanks,which are lightly armour and have weaker firepower
but fast, are supposed to break through it and harass the
rear.
The entire blitzkrieg thing might have been more disastrous for the
allies than the germans.
Interesting point,and i know which book you are referring to,but
i reserve my opinion.
However the author of the book is a Literature professor rather
than a history one,and much less of military history.Moreover his
points are really controversial and suspected of
sensationalism,thus i would take it with a pitch of salt.
Nevertheless shall read his book instead of jumping to
conclusion.
