Blitzkrieg in the 21st century?

[chem1st]

'Lightening warfare', Blitzkrieg. We have all heard of it, but how would it exist in modern times?

 

The skies are actively monitored, and moving aerial targets can be taken down with ease. So, how would a nation or state impose blitzkrieg without utilising (for the most part) the skies?

 

 

Personally I think the 'container' (shipping container) holds the key.

 

An army could amass itself in small self autonomous units in shipping containers, within a couple of weeks shipping itself to the rest of the world (China for example could do so easily). The logistics of troop movement (probably the greatest barrier to a large scale invasion in modern times, would be taken care of). An army would be able to invade and conquer, effectively unnoticed.

 

If you had a very large standing army, and your aim was to conquer the world, how would you deploy them?

[Harleyman]

'Lightening warfare', Blitzkrieg. We have all heard of it, but how would it exist in modern times?

 

The skies are actively monitored, and moving aerial targets can be taken down with ease. So, how would a nation or state impose blitzkrieg without utilising (for the most part) the skies?

 

 

Personally I think the 'container' (shipping container) holds the key.

 

An army could amass itself in small self autonomous units in shipping containers, within a couple of weeks shipping itself to the rest of the world (China for example could do so easily). The logistics of troop movement (probably the greatest barrier to a large scale invasion in modern times, would be taken care of). An army would be able to invade and conquer, effectively unnoticed.

 

If you had a very large standing army, and your aim was to conquer the world, how would you deploy them?

 

Large standing armies are obsolete. It's all about devastating missile and air attacks from warships and submarines and a moderate sized army equipped with the very latest in high tech killing gear to finish off the job. Large numbers no longer mean anything

[flamingjimmy]

'Lightening warfare', Blitzkrieg. We have all heard of it, but how would it exist in modern times?

 

The skies are actively monitored, and moving aerial targets can be taken down with ease. So, how would a nation or state impose blitzkrieg without utilising (for the most part) the skies?

 

 

Personally I think the 'container' (shipping container) holds the key.

 

An army could amass itself in small self autonomous units in shipping containers, within a couple of weeks shipping itself to the rest of the world (China for example could do so easily). The logistics of troop movement (probably the greatest barrier to a large scale invasion in modern times, would be taken care of). An army would be able to invade and conquer, effectively unnoticed.

 

If you had a very large standing army, and your aim was to conquer the world, how would you deploy them?

 

Orbital drop pod things like in Halo, that would be awesome!

 

Realistically I'd have to go with Harleyman.

[hitch_1980]

Just introduce a pathogen into the country.....much simpler.

[KamalJoe]

A single "air wolf" chopper could carry all of them in seconds and drop them on presidential palace...

[Cyclone]

Large standing armies are obsolete. It's all about devastating missile and air attacks from warships and submarines and a moderate sized army equipped with the very latest in high tech killing gear to finish off the job. Large numbers no longer mean anything

 

Yeah, look how well that's worked in Helmand province.

[L00b]

Just introduce a pathogen into the country.....much simpler.

That's more-or-less good enough to neutralise (by task overload) a country's CCC system, but not to take a country over. Neither is air power alone, it's only good for achieving air supremacy first, then neutralising any remaining ground opposition through CAS. You need ground-pounders to take a country over.

 

chemist1's idea of using containers is nicely left-field, but unlikely to get anywhere as operational security would be compromised too early.

 

A 21st century interpretation of Blietzkrieg, to my mind, would combine closely integrated and synchronised electronic, commercial and military warfare. Think the firesale of Die Hard 4, combined with an engineered financial crash, combined with surgical/tactical strikes on CCC infrastructure, military airfields and armor laagers, within 48 hours or less.

[Vague_Boy]

The principle of "Blitzkrieg" is often misunderstood.

 

Blitzkrieg is an anglicized word describing all-mechanized force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power, concentrating overwhelming force and rapid speed to break through enemy lines, and once the latter is broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.

 

LINK

 

Instead of attacking across a broad front, infantry and mechanized units (with air support) would attack a very narrow area and overwhelm it.

 

Thus the air bombing of British cities known as "the Blitz" was not an example of the Blitzkrieg strategy.

 

Indeed, some histories now doubt that Blitzkrieg even existed as a clearly defined military strategy.

 

LINK

[Harleyman]

Yeah, look how well that's worked in Helmand province.

 

That's a whole different kind of war than the type being discussed.

[Cyclone]

You declared that large standing armies were obsolete, despite the US having one of the largest in the world.

Blitzkrieg is a tactic to use in a war, not a type of war. Massive technological advantage, surgical strikes, cruise missiles, stealth bombers, those can all form parts of other tactics.

Neither of these tactics work when your enemy refuses to line up and fight you and when there is no critical infrastructure to destroy.