Nazi germany

oh look! another nazi thread! :DDDDDDD

to blitz and then krieg

>>1775339

>What was the Blitzkrieg tatics?

Blitzkrieg was a myth. The Wehrmacht never had any official doctrine codifying such a concept.

>>1775347
There are more fascist thread than nazi threads.

Nothing wrong with that.

>>1775364
this, pretty sure the term was invented by an American

all it was old tactics with new technology

>>1775397

>all it was old tactics with new technology

Basically this. There was nothing really new or innovative. They were just using well-understood tactics with newer technology.

>>1775416

New to the thread, but there was considreable tactical and operational innovation, mostly centered around communication between their new air arms, armor arms, and the pre-existing infantry and artillery arms.

Yes, if you reduce it to "get behind them with speed once you've found a weak point" then yes, there was nothing really new, but that skips over quite a bit of work as to how they would actually achieve this.

Wikipedia is your friend for something as simple as this
>During the interwar period, aircraft and tank technologies matured and were combined with systematic application of the traditional German tactic of Bewegungskrieg ("maneuver warfare"), deep penetrations and the bypassing of enemy strong points to encircle and destroy enemy forces in a Kesselschlacht ("cauldron battle").[3][6] During the Invasion of Poland, Western journalists adopted the term blitzkrieg to describe this form of armoured warfare.[7] The term had appeared in 1935, in a German military periodical Deutsche Wehr ("German Defense"), in connection to quick or lightning warfare.[8] German manoeuvre operations were successful in the campaigns of 1939–1941 and by 1940 the term blitzkrieg was extensively used in Western media.[9][10] Blitzkrieg operations capitalized on surprise penetrations (e.g., the penetration of the Ardennes forest region), general enemy unreadiness and their inability to match the pace of the German attack. During the Battle of France, the French made attempts to re-form defensive lines along rivers but were frustrated when German forces arrived first and pressed on.[10]

>>1775416
It was the right kind of tactics though, at least up until the eastern front.
You can always take a new tool and use it incorrectly but their shit fit like a glove in western europe.

>>1775433

>It was the right kind of tactics though, at least up until the eastern front.

I never said there was anything wrong with it. The idea that you need to come up with completely novel tactics every time you get a new type of tank is silly.

FAST AS THE WIND THE INVASION HAS BEGUN

>>1775339
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=blitzkrieg

>>1775416
to make massive oversimplifications:
before WW1, warfare had evolved to the point where everything depended on aggressive cavalry charges, which could break through any line of troops. essentially the kind of things that napoleon used.

however, due to certain technological advances such as the machine gun, defense ruled the day during WW1. millions of troops were slaughtered as they tried to use the aggressive tactics of napoleon charging into machine guns. turns out that the smart money was on trench warfare.

in WW2, even newer technological advances flipped the script yet again. planes, trains, and automobiles (tanks) gave the advantage back to the aggressor. blitzkrieg typically refers to the use of tanks with support infantry to rapidly plow through the enemy's defensive trenches, which, to generalize, is exactly what germany did to france in WW2.

>>1775339
Napoleon's tactics adapted to tanks and airplanes

>>1775474
Wrong. 100 percent wrong.

Storm trooper tactics and Hussier tactics broke the stalemate of ww1. Tanks were useless

>>1775339
Gotta go fast.