Westerm Front in World War Two was a Tactical War compared to the East

>>1536198

What the hell is a "tactical war"?

Tactical as in mistakes from both sides on in terms of tactics would cost them hugely.

Whereas tactical mistakes on the Eastern front were pretty much a non issue.

The Wehrmacht could encircle and destroy 10 divisions without a problem, however it would mean nothing.

By contrast, the Allies could encircle 10 divisions and the entire German front would be in jeopardy.

>>1536202

Are you stupid, or just extremely ignorant?

First off, what you're describing are operational mistakes in the sense of getting divisional formations encircled and destroyed.

Tactics is even smaller scale than that, and tactical mistakes is what led to a force that only had about a 1.3:1 numerical advantage and gross inferiority in things like tanks and planes completely obliterate their opponents and advance almost 700 kilometers in the space of a few months along a front that was over 1,500 km long. In fact, the only reason that the entire Eastern Front wasn't the USSR simply squishing the Germans was the enormous tactical disparity between the Wehrmacht and the Red army.


Are you trying to say that the Eastern Front was bigger than the Western Front in WW2? I don't think you'll find too many that would disagree with you. But throwing around a term like "Tactical war" just makes you look like you're drinking bleach.

>>1536198
There was much smaller room to make mistakes on the Western Front, given the size of the front and divisions involved, if that's what you mean. One small mistake on the Western front would cost much more than on the Eastern Front where numbers and support were thick. I think I get what you're talking about, but just being operations on the Eastern Front were much more massive, doesn't mean that tactics and events on the battalion level were not important.