Guderian proposed that tanks should be used in a concentrated
mass instead of being spread all across the frontline. Using a
tanks mobility, an armored force can easily puncture the frontline
defence while a second or third force can flank the enemy position
thus allowing a pincer like manouver. This action should be done
quickly and swiftly to achieve surprise and to prevent the enemy
from regrouping. This strategy is part of what we call the
"Blitzkrieg
Yes the father of armoured warfare proposed and infact trained
the intial batch of tankers for the Wehrmacht.He wanted the tanks
to be used as an armoured fist banging the enemy at 1point and
running through.After which the tanks will flank the enemy and trap
the enemy between the tanks and advancing infantry.Note at this
point the only infantry units the Panzer regiments will have would
be the Panzer Grenadier troops that followed in the
half-tracks.That is armoured warfare as directed by
Guderian.However Blitzkrieg is a total warfare that is presently
still practised.Namely by the USA.Ofcause 60 years of experience
and technology has made the Blitzkrieg of today far more
effective.The chief purpose of the blitz was to take out the enemy
in as fast a way as possible before he has a chance to use his full
potential.For example the low countries and poland were caught out
still mobilzing troops when the attack came and never got to their
max amount of soldiers depolyed before their positions were
overran.The blitz and the armoured warfare needed the soldiers to
be indepented and not be held back when a chance was seen.The
officers needed to know what to do and how not to wait for
orders.At present the US army with all it's high tech grear is
extremely independent on the battlefield.Like the German's of ww2
they are also very moblie.Ofcause technology has made the US even
better as they can see the picture more clearly.
Airpower alone cannot win a conflict in this part of the world (
think vietnam ).
Fast forward to vietnam, the americans bombarded the vietcong like
siao, yet they survived and beat the americans through superior use
of terrain. So back to the question.... can we face up to a larger
force of soldiers more well-trained in jungle warfare
It is commonly known that airpower alone cannot win wars though
Kosovo is more of an example then vietnam.Infact the US did not
lose vietnam on a purely military standpoint.They only lost the
political war.Heck they barely even touched the North in their
bombing campaign.The vietcong had little supplies when the US
started bombing the trails that they used to bring supplies in.When
the US pulled out the front was pretty intact i believe not to sure
though.
Btw... any experts on WW2 in the pacific theatre? I'm interested
at how the americans drove the japanese out, especially from the
phillipines and the pacific islands. Could be more related, as the
terrain is roughly the same
Sure grit and heavy use of airpower.Tanks were rarely
used(flamethrower tanks aside)
japs also introduced tanks into the dense jungles of malaya
peninsular during that time when the british thought it is not
feasible and a waste of resources as they're also having their own
fight in the european theatre and else where
Japanese tanks were crap.....comparable to the charB or PZ
3's
In a book by another german commander called "Panzer Battles".
the author pointed out the failure of british armor in WW2. Because
the british grouped the tanks with the infantry... the tanks were
more for infantry support. this reduced the mobility of the tanks
during an armed confrontation. Germany thought differently, they
massed their tanks and each panzer force included its own logistics
and supply division. So their tanks basically out manouvered the
british becasue they were not hindered by their infantry
The tanks were classified as support and thus grouped with the
artiliary.
yes, you were right in the tanks part but note that they are
where when the battle took place? and during then, the bazookas
aren't carried around or as mobile as nowadays....also, they don;t
kill tanks remotely like what we do now....definitely these need to
be discounted if you only want to talk abt past campaigns.
if you've watched Band of Brothers....remember the scene whereby
the British tankers refused to fire at a cluster of buildings just
b'cos there's an order to protect them?? but the panzers are hiding
in between these said buildings waiting to ambush and kill their
enemies. and who noticed the panzers??? the infantry elites....my
guess is that if they've lots of bazookas with them at that time,
they would have taken out these panzers, laughing.
Every platoon of german and i think even US troops were given at
least 1 or 2 anti-armour weapon.(Bazooka or
PanzerFuast,/Panzercheck)
And since the tank was a tiger i doubt those wld do anything other
then throw a track.
I was interested in "Blitzkrieg" tactics and was wondering
whether it is possible to implement such strategies in our regional
context ( we have a lot of jungle terrain ).. with an emphasis on
armored warfare.
Blitzkrieg has to be implemented otherwised we are
screwed.....we cannot afford attrition.However i think we should be
more infantry based but with heavy supporting fire(both direct and
indirect) and some armour.
