Blitzkrieg in the 21st century?

[Harleyman]

During the cold war the NATO Allies realized that their land forces were vastly outnumbered by the Soviet Forces. They envisaged a few thosusand tanks and somewhere around 100 plus divisions of infantry pouring through the Fulda Gap into Western Germany and the scenario was that at best the NATO Forces would be able to hold them off for no longer than a week or so. When that was no longer possible then nuclear weapons were to be used to bring them to a stop.

Never discussed much outside of NATO but well known by every Western military and political leader.

Nuclear weapons resulted in numerically large armies becoming obsolete in major conflicts

[L00b]

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

Is a fair point but, to countenance and put your earlier Helmand point in context, look how well it worked against the Iraqis the second time around.

 

Afghanistan is, like Vietnam was, essentially guerilla warfare within an allied (but self-incapable) country, fundamentally incompatible with the operational concept of Blitzkrieg (or modern equivalent). Harleyman had a point, just (possibly) an unfortunate choice of words.

[Harleyman]

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.

 

In this case the enemy hides in villages and since the NATO Forces are not Nazi SS the killing of inniocent women and children and the wholesale destruction of villages in the course of rooting out and eliminating the enemy is obviously not a viable course of action

[Cyclone]

During the cold war the NATO Allies realized that their land forces were vastly outnumbered by the Soviet Forces. They envisaged a few thosusand tanks and somewhere around 100 plus divisions of infantry pouring through the Fulda Gap into Western Germany and the scenario was that at best the NATO Forces would be able to hold them off for no longer than a week or so. When that was no longer possible then nuclear weapons were to be used to bring them to a stop.

Never discussed much outside of NATO but well known by every Western military and political leader.

Nuclear weapons resulted in numerically large armies becoming obsolete in major conflicts

 

So long as you're prepared to use the weapons and your command and control infrastructure still exists to launch them.

NATO and the SU developed battlefield nukes as well. Didn't most war game scenarios escalate to both sides using these quite soon.

Ultimately with similarly equipped and trained forces, the numerically superior should win. They keep nuking each other in a tactical way until the smaller side no longer has the capability to target or launch such weapons, at which point it gets over run.

 

I'm not sure that blitzkrieg was applied in Iraq either. Our tanks and supporting forces rolled in without any serious resistance at all, they had no need to move faster than expected and appear in places they shouldn't have been able to reach as there was no one to surprise or beat to the destination.

As wars went, it was a bit of a non event really.

[Harleyman]

Is a fair point but, to countenance and put your earlier Helmand point in context, look how well it worked against the Iraqis the second time around.

 

Afghanistan is, like Vietnam was, essentially guerilla warfare within an allied (but self-incapable) country, fundamentally incompatible with the operational concept of Blitzkrieg (or modern equivalent). Harleyman had a point, just (possibly) an unfortunate choice of words.

 

In the case of Vietnam there was always the threat of China or Russia or both becoming involved and this is what influenced the thinking of the American leaders at that time Therefore the use of overwhelming force which otherwise could have completely destroyed North Vetnam's ability to supply equipment and soldiers to aid the VC in the south was considered to be too risky.

 

Militarily the US forces fought that war with as the saying goes "one hand tied behind their backs" and because of this the war dragged on for years and eventually as a result became very unpopular back in America.

[Harleyman]

So long as you're prepared to use the weapons and your command and control infrastructure still exists to launch them.

NATO and the SU developed battlefield nukes as well. Didn't most war game scenarios escalate to both sides using these quite soon.

Ultimately with similarly equipped and trained forces, the numerically superior should win. They keep nuking each other in a tactical way until the smaller side no longer has the capability to target or launch such weapons, at which point it gets over run.

 

I'm not sure that blitzkrieg was applied in Iraq either. Our tanks and supporting forces rolled in without any serious resistance at all, they had no need to move faster than expected and appear in places they shouldn't have been able to reach as there was no one to surprise or beat to the destination.

As wars went, it was a bit of a non event really.

 

 

Once nuclear weapons had been used on the battlefield then it was only a matter of days before just about every city in Russia, Europe and America would have been wiped out.

 

Assured mutual destruction was the keyword amongst Soviet and Western leaders

[Harleyman]

The principle of "Blitzkrieg" is often misunderstood.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Initially hHtler's aim was to destroy the Royal Air Force as the first step to launching a cross channel invasion. The Luftwaffe were ordered to hit only military targets and avoid any bombing of British cities. However as fate would have it a German bomber mistakenly dropped a few bombs on London one night and Churchill thinking that this was a new tactic to terrorize the civilan population ordered a retaliatory strike by RAF bombers against Berlin. This started off the whole blitz bombing of London in the following months.

 

The bombing of civilian targets in Germany never proved effective in demoralizing or bringing the end of the war any nearer. It certainly didn't demoralize the British in 1940/41

[Cyclone]

Once nuclear weapons had been used on the battlefield then it was only a matter of days before just about every city in Russia, Europe and America would have been wiped out.

 

Assured mutual destruction was the keyword amongst Soviet and Western leaders

 

I'm not so sure that tactical nukes would have escalated so quickly to an all out strike. Neither side wanted to cause armageddon, that wouldn't stop them using small scale weapons in theatre though.

[Harleyman]

[QUOTE=Cyclone;6284330]I'm not so sure that tactical nukes would have escalated so quickly to an all out strike. Neither side wanted to cause armageddon, that wouldn't stop them using small scale weapons in theatre though.

 

I'm pretty sure from what I've read that it would. There were hot heads on both sides who would have escalated the situation.

 

Why do think that the Kennedy administration never launched an invasion of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis? There were many who were pushing Kennedy to do it. American forces could have easily overwhelmed any Cuban or Russian resistance but the great fear was that in retaliation the Russians would have taken over West Berlin which would then have started a whole shooting war and from then on a full blown all out war.

Those were dangerous times, the situation very volatile

[shane39]

During the cold war the NATO Allies realized that their land forces were vastly outnumbered by the Soviet Forces. They envisaged a few thosusand tanks and somewhere around 100 plus divisions of infantry pouring through the Fulda Gap into Western Germany and the scenario was that at best the NATO Forces would be able to hold them off for no longer than a week or so. When that was no longer possible then nuclear weapons were to be used to bring them to a stop.

Never discussed much outside of NATO but well known by every Western military and political leader.

Nuclear weapons resulted in numerically large armies becoming obsolete in major conflicts

 

Back in the 80s i bought a book from a carboot sale titled,"Third World War" Scary book! and what you have wrote above Harleyman was of the same opinion of top military figures from Russia,Usa and UK.

 

They went on to say after 2 weeks Nato forces would be overrun and the only way to stop it would be by deploying short range nuclear missiles.

 

They also predicted tit for tat nuclear strikes,(the cities mentioned in the book were Coventry and Minsk)After this,the top brass went on to say,"that some kind of truce would be called"Before all hell was let loose.

 

Very spooky book at the time.