Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this has been fairly clarified but I will add to it - Cavalry was not a really a breakthrough arm, or an early praction, of "blitzgrieg" at all. They were used to scout, to skirmish, to screen, and from time to time as shock troops, and also to pursue a defeated foe. In the pursuit then, they can exploit a success, and that's really the key here - it's not about the tactics of envelope, it's not combined forces, it's not massing the army at a single point. All important concepts to a battle victory, but it's not relevant, we don't care about tactics here. Whatever the tactic, without being able to exploit the success, a victory is meaningless. It's the ability to move beyond the front, pursuing a fleeing foe, and create chaos, panic, and confusion.
We can also ignore the power and might of the tank to a certain extent. What really made the difference is that it was motorized. The ability to cover distances that infantry and horse could not in order to exploit the breakthrough. The ability to advance 30 to 50 miles in a day, unheard of in the time of Alexander or even Napoleon. Combine that with real-time communication, the radio, and the technology far exceeded anything before that time.
There were different types of cavalry. The scouting/skirmishing you refer to is by Hussars. There was Heavy Cavalry which was a breakthough arm and designed to panic infantry into rout if not formed to defend. At least by the time of the Late-Royal/Revolutionary/Imperial French army period as I use Elting's Swords Around a Throne as my reference point for this.
Although I believe one can stretch back a few decades to other battles by other armies on the European continent where cavalry was controversial as a breakthough weapon with both success and failure. I am thinking of Minden in particular.
There were different types of cavalry. The scouting/skirmishing you refer to is by Hussars. There was Heavy Cavalry which was a breakthough arm and designed to panic infantry into rout if not formed to defend. At least by the time of the Late-Royal/Revolutionary/Imperial French army period as I use Elting's Swords Around a Throne as my reference point for this.
Although I believe one can stretch back a few decades to other battles by other armies on the European continent where cavalry was controversial as a breakthough weapon with both success and failure. I am thinking of Minden in particular.
Yes I know this. I had not intended to go off topic into such detail, but since you commented - you have it a bit simplified - you had dragoons, lancers (uhlans), cuirrissairs & carabiniers (heavy). Light cavalry is not only hussars - but Cossacks (even Napoleon cav could not match them, or catch them), stradiots, hobelars, etc. Each region had it’s variation. Dragoons could be considered light cav as well, same with Lancers perhaps. Each had a purpose and role in battle.
For the record, since you mention the French Army, The french revolutionary period cavalry was not good compared to the other European powers. It was Napoleon who gave them specific roles and duties during all phases of the battle, thus making them the best in Europe (with an exception of the Cossacks). The role of heavy cav is as you described, with the addition of the use of Artillery (and Cav had it's own dedicated light artillery batteries) to blow holes in the opponents lines and squares. Without that, even heavy cav could not penetrate a well-disciplined square. But, light cavalry was also used in shock tactics, and also in the pursuit of a defeated foe. After Jena, Napoleon attributed the light infantry to chasing the Prussians all the way back to the Baltic.
Napoleon pretty much exhausted his horse resources in the invasion of Russia. After that, his cav forces were only a shadow of it's former self.
My reference is Chandler's "Campaigns of Napoleon" and Leiven's "Russia Against Napoleon".
Well if you knew it then you should have phrased your post differently. Because your entire first sentence that I quoted is in error.
What is with you and that John English guy? You don't need to hang on every word and look for a point of contention, twisting and taking things out of context. Most of us history forum regulars know what we are talking about here.
It's interesting that we can't even agree in this thread between 4 or 5 posters what "blitzkrieg" is, primarily because it's a media invented term and thus open to interpretation and opinions. Hitler never sat at a table with his general's and stated "Ve vill do blitzkrieg against the French, ya". Clausewitz never wrote a text on the military concept of blitzkrieg in his 19th century military theories. I define it as the ability to exploit a tactical victory via the use of motorized weapons and transport, enabling speed and distance that would not be achievable by pre-motorized technology, to achieve strategic victory. Cavalry could not be used in blitzkreig using my interpretation, nor was Cavalry essentially a breakthrough arm as it so many varied uses. That's what I was trying to convey.
[quote=Dd714;34714115]It's interesting that we can't even agree in this thread between 4 or 5 posters what "blitzkrieg" is, primarily because it's a media invented term.
So it is a word coined by the English language press, so freaking what? The word aptly conveys just what the German advance in Poland, France and the Soviet Union felt like to those on the receiving side, so what's the beef?
It's interesting that we can't even agree in this thread between 4 or 5 posters what "blitzkrieg" is, primarily because it's a media invented term.
So it is a word coined by the English language press, so freaking what? The word aptly conveys just what the German advance in Poland, France and the Soviet Union felt like to those on the receiving side, so what's the beef?
Sorry but I just don't feel your pain.
No pain here, just observation.
I didn't start the thread.
In WW2, the Ge rman invasion of France was an encirclement, but relied on a
frontal assault initially for success. The ultimate goal was an encirclement of
Allied forces in Belgium. To achieve this, the Germans relied on a decisive
frontal assault on a small area to break through the Allied lines. The Germans
concentrated their tanks into Panzer divisions and used them in concert with
tremendous airpower. The Allies were relying on infantry divisions to "man the
line". As proven, infantry formations with sparsely arranged support tanks were
no match for the Panzer divisions in concert with Lufwaffe. The Panzers were
able to roll through the Allied lines with relative ease. Once the breakthrough
was achieved, the Germans were able to pincer the Allies in Belgium via a
two-pronged attack. The Allies were thoroughly encircled and faced
annihilation
Good exposition. I'd just like to add that another motif riding on that surge West and in that so-called metaphor of war 'blitzkrieg' was surprise judiciously added to great concentration of force at a particular place. It was surely deadly for the Allies as they tried to defend the sweeping German advance.
No doubt it all went back to the plan Manstein developed who subtly gave the Allies a look that the main thrust done by Army Group B was going to be on the right-wing like in WWI but really he had given the decisive role for Army Group A (3 armies) to go through the Ardennes and force the crossing of the Meuse at Sedan. Then from there west and push behind the flank and rear of the Allies in Belgium. This was allegedly a daring and original plan. It was interesting that the German command didn't even interfere initially with the British and French troops going into Belgium. It was as if they were calculating several moves ahead on battlefields as they slowly closed the Allies options in the west. I'd think surprise has to be up there as an extremely incisive quality to add to that 'blitkrieg' of concentrated firepower, mobility and army unit cooperation.
One thing about 'blitzkrieg', it stopped at Dunkirk and as well at the Sedan bridgehead where the Panzers didn't move so quickly after setting it up. A big mistake looking at the German point of view. Ironically, blitzkrieg, in a sense, 'lost' time for Germany and gave it to England who picked up the pieces, fought the BOB and helped the Allies win the war.
Not me. But you came at my post with incorrect information and I correct you and now you are upset. Too bad. Get it right the first time.
Wow, dude....settle down. This is getting silly, we are all adults here. I didn't see your initial post as a correction at all, nor did I take it that way, since I was not incorrect in the slightest bit. Your second post was took me somewhat aback because it was like "wow, this guy is taking it personal".
I saw your post as more info - which is always appreciated. I in turn responded with even more info, I take it you thought I was correcting you. I always enjoy the subject of 19th century warfare, Napoleon being one of my topics of interest for the past few years. If you want to discuss it more, not on who is right or wrong or such silliness (because ultimately it comes down to opinion), but on concepts, please offer it in a new thread since I think we are getting off topic. It's all good.
Not getting personal. Just setting it straight. But if you are sincere re:#29 then all is good and back to the main topic we go.
Admittedly I went to the gym at lunch time and moved some weight. Probable aggressive residual effects. Pardon that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
