Between Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle, which was "less" of a meme?

Between Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle, which was "less" of a meme?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know anything about strategy but I think deep battle looks better because theres more arrows

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh yeah, what would Airland Battle look like btw?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        spiral arrows cuz they're planes, duh

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Long range fires targeting the reserve deep battle forces before they reach the front line while the defensive line fights an elastic defense and then counterattacks.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the main philosophy behind airland is to neutralize the information that the initial probing attacks gain and to make it impossible for them to know to know with certainty where a weak point exists
          total abandonment of the concept of a static frontline and instead long, narrow channels where the enemy actually exerts their control are a better idea of where combat is actually taking place

          against probing attack, individual units are supposed to aggressively counter-act at their own discretion or actively attack an enemy that is pursuing a withdrawing unit
          so probing attacks fail to draw out where the defenders intend to protect, since aggressive attacks make it hard to tell what they intend to protect and what they intend to give up
          against the main thrust, instead of trying to stop or blunt it, they try to shape the direction its supposed to go
          if the encircling force wants to take the path of least resistance to bypass hardpoints and encircle the main force, then you can actually position its axis of advance into dead space by carefully controlling where units are counter-attacking withdrawing, baiting the advance into a counter-encirclement

          so this puts the soviet commander into a much harder position, they will need to constantly delay the main attack until they can pin down the intentions of such a deliberately formless, fluid defense
          and the more the soviet attack is delayed, the more apparent it becomes to the defenders what their intentions are and what they need to take

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The one that won the war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tuky didn't and Russia would have lost all of their positions west of the Urals without support from America and Britbongistan.

      Deep battle requires huge reserves of men and equipment and is very inefficient (what do you expect from socialists?) and blitzkrieg is more of a propaganda term than anything. For a purely offensive strike the krauts had it right. Deep battle is an attempt to apply defense in depth to offensive scenarios. The best offense is not a good defense.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair he was doing really well until the wheels fell off at Warsaw.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean bombing German cities and industries?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well, that was US and british doctrine. So I guess your answer is neither.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Between Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle, which was "less" of a meme?
    deep battle, for not being a meme at all

    the word blitzkrieg is never used to describe german strategy, it was an evocative term used to describe the speed with which they defeated poland
    it is the literal, textbook, definition of a meme, an idea that comes up and spreads from person to person until everyone calls the german attack pattern blitzkrieg

    you can argue whether or not deep battle actually works, but it is definitionally not a meme
    its a technical term used solely by people within the military community and was used exclusively in a professional context

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Blitzkrieg is kinda outdated nowadays due counters for that kind of breaching has been developed, mostly due how effective it was at the time.
      Deep Battle is commie cope about how throwing human waves is actually a strategy and not just the only thing commies could effectively do.

      Yeah, the Germans did "blitzkrieg" because they had mobile, well trained formations with well integrated artillery and support and were going up against the Polish and the 1941 Red Army. It's pretty easy to blow through a hasty defensive position and encircle a division or two when the other side barely has radios and is far too heavy organizationally and can't react.

      By that definition (attack a weak point hard, blow through, advance, envelop, destroy) the Red Army was doing it with slight modifications by 1944. It is not a particular piece of doctrine, it's just what well trained motorized/mechanized forces look like when they're going up against a stunned immobile enemy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        germans actually called their doctrine schwerpunkt, not blitzkrieg
        blitzkrieg is a literal meme, something created by the tabloids and then spreading until it is common parlance

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly. What I'm trying to say is that it's a meme. By 1944 they weren't doing "blitzkrieg", because they couldn't get enough not-completely-destroyed forces together to do anything. Blitzkrieg is a fricking annoying term and I wish people would stop using it.

          Tuky didn't and Russia would have lost all of their positions west of the Urals without support from America and Britbongistan.

          Deep battle requires huge reserves of men and equipment and is very inefficient (what do you expect from socialists?) and blitzkrieg is more of a propaganda term than anything. For a purely offensive strike the krauts had it right. Deep battle is an attempt to apply defense in depth to offensive scenarios. The best offense is not a good defense.

          Deep battle actually worked in part because it pinned down the Germans and forced them to have small reaction forces that were over relied upon and worn out. I don't think, in most cases, a singular penetration would have worked against the Germans. You had to do it all over the place all at once, all of the battles I've read about the 1943-1944 period in Ukraine mention that the Germans were holding out quite well until suddenly they weren't.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah bruh it was called bewegungskrieg, Schwerpunkt only means concentrating you main force on a singular point of attack to achieve breakthrough.
          The german "blitzkrieg" is just the bewegungskrieg concept that they practiced since the 19th century, only at the time of WW2 technology had come a long way and you could have motorised/armored units that could cover 50-80 kilometers of ground in a day.
          Fun fact is this scared the shit out of the german high command during the battle of France, they did not expect their unit to go Flash McQueen and issued orders for them to stop their advance. Bc they were fearing those units would be cut off by strong ennemy attacks on the flanks.
          Some commanders not wanting to, like Guderian and Rommel, just exploited a loophole in the orders and conducted "reconnaissance in force".
          Luckily for them the British and French command structures where a fricking meme by that point so they didnt really have any fear of being cut off from the rear.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Prussia and the German states have arguably since the time of frederick the great focused on maneuver warfare. "Blitzkrieg" was just a term that came up after mechanized units and air support where utilized by it because of how quickly they made progress early on.
      At it's very core the german ww2 doctrine is no different than it was during the franco-prussian war.

      germans actually called their doctrine schwerpunkt, not blitzkrieg
      blitzkrieg is a literal meme, something created by the tabloids and then spreading until it is common parlance

      >germans actually called their doctrine schwerpunkt
      Schwerpunkt is just a term whose use clausewitz coined for the focal point which would give the best odds of victory.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blitzkrieg is kinda outdated nowadays due counters for that kind of breaching has been developed, mostly due how effective it was at the time.
    Deep Battle is commie cope about how throwing human waves is actually a strategy and not just the only thing commies could effectively do.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >throwing human waves is actually a strategy and not just the only thing commies could effectively do.
      thats bit dumb way to put it. For sure the first attacks would be costly, but if you break through, you'd quickly be attacking unprepared units in the rear, support units, and enveloping the other frontline troops around the breach. So first you get high casualties, then you inflict high casualties with less of a risk.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I fricking hate the myth that the Soviets won WW2 with "human waves." WW1 proved that thanks to automatic weapons, human wave tactics simply don't win wars anymore. And this just gets more true as firepower and weapons get more and more advanced

      https://i.imgur.com/JAPTV2G.png

      Between Blitzkrieg and Deep Battle, which was "less" of a meme?

      To answer anon's question: I don't really know what you mean by a meme? I'm assuming you mean which one was more effective. It really depends on what part of the war we're talking about. Blitzkrieg was highly effective when the Germans had a major advantage against the allies in terms of weapons and air power. But when the Soviet industrial Goliath went into full force, blitzkrieg became less and less effective, as the Soviets could simply shake off the losses while the Germans couldn't. The battle of Kursk was the turning point, as this was the first major German offensive in the east that failed to achieve a breakthrough. After that, German blitzkrieg slowly fizzled out as they went from offensive warfare to desperate defense

      Deep battle is basically the opposite: whereas blitzkrieg started off strong and wore off in effectiveness, deep battle started off in catastrophe and got more effective as time went on. To oversimplify highly complex military theory: deep battle was a complete failure in the open fields of Belarus and Ukraine, because the front was simply too big for the flanking maneuvers that deep battle tactics plan out. But when the battle was brought to the cities of Stalingrad and Leningrad, it was far more effective, as the tight urban spaces made the cutting maneuvers much more applicable. The soviets realized deep battle wasn't very effective in field combat, and so they started to move more towards tank-based offensives (particularly the "big three" as I like to call them: Zhukov, Rokossovsky, and Kovenev, with Rokossovsky being in my opinion the best general of the entire war)

      I'd say deep battle was the bigger meme overall because it was essentially abandoned

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I fricking hate the myth that the Soviets won WW2 with "human waves." WW1 proved that thanks to automatic weapons, human wave tactics simply don't win wars anymore. And this just gets more true as firepower and weapons get more and more advanced
        Russians are still doing human waves in ukraine tho?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not really. The Russians are basically trying to win the long game: thanks to their incompetent leadership and outdated equipment, they failed to win the war decisively in the first few weeks. So they're relying HEAVILY on artillery to do the heavy lifting in terms of casualties (over seventy percent of the casualties are from artillery). Basically, shells are cheap, manpower isn't. The Russians have realized that they just need to wait for the Ukranians to run out of manpower. NATO can send them all the fancy toys the American taxpayer can afford, but Ukraine simply doesn't have the manpower to hold out forever. It's a crude strategy, but it seems to be working

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol, Russians are having daily casualty rates of over thousand. That is not in any way of conserving manpower

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Well, as much manpower as you can conserve in total war anyway. Like I said, the vast majority of the casualties are from artillery, artillery has truly become the God of war

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Like I said, the vast majority of the casualties are from artillery
                That's outdated meme though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fricking hate the myth that the Soviets won WW2 with "human waves."
        Ther was such sentiment spread by commies. Before 2022, now it's shattered again.
        If you study WWII war you should study not only successful Soviet operations but also their failures. And Soviet pattern is pretty clear: throw human waves shit untill it sticks. And it finally stack, after Germans send their armor to fight Allies on the Western Front.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Soviet doctrine wasn't just "throwing people at the enemy until they run out of bullets" Soviet high command were thinking strategically. Take operation bagration: Rokossovsky masterfully tricked the Germans into thinking he would attack army group south when he attacked army group center, with armored units leading the assault and the northern part cutting off army group north. It was an operational masterpiece that made the situation utterly desperate for the Germans. Or before the battle of Kursk where Zhukov set up fake air fields that the Germans would focus their dive bombing on, taking fighter focus away from the fight. My point is: Soviet doctrine was often wasteful, but they beat the Germans on the strategic level, not just on the manpower level

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Rokossovsky masterfully tricked the Germans into thinking he would attack army group south when he attacked army group center, with armored units leading the assault and the northern part cutting off army group north.
            More like some drunken frick fricked up their orders and soviets got lucky

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, they got so lucky they destroyed 28 out of the 34 divisions of army group center and paraded the tens of thousands of POWs in Moscow like it was rome. You don't get a victory like that through pure luck. It was operational brilliance in its purest form

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, it was luck. There was no brilliance in soviets as staling would have immedialy have it executed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again. Take not only successful Soviet operations but their losses. And all Soviet operations during WWII have same RTS like pattern: take all available forces and send them forward with attack move command. That's it. There is no deep thoughts or strategy about it. Soviets send human waves forward over and over and over. And they were all slaughtered. Until allies landed in Normandy and Germans send their prime fighting force (armor) there. Then Soviet tactics stuck. And they wrote about thousands books how they were smart (not).

            And today in Ukraine you see same pattern again. Russian reinforcements trickle to front, Russian commander attack move send them forward, they die, maybe they take hundreds meters of the ground. Rinse and repeat.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm looking at both. If human wave tactics work, why didn't it work in WW1? Why did the Germans absolutely spank the Tsarists despite being totally numerically inferior? Like I said before, thanks to automatic weapons, throwing men at the front line no longer wins battles, firepower and armor does, and the Soviets realized this. They became masters at armored tactics by 1944. If you want more in depth analysis, read "the myth of the Eastern front" or watch History Legend's video on it, but basically "human waves" is a cope made by retired Nazi generals who didn't want to accept that they were defeated on the strategic level

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just drink this putrid propaganda anon and you will understand
                sure

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Believe me, I am NO fan of communism or Stalin. If you knew me in person you'd know this. But I hate Nazi cope just as much as I hate Commie cope (or cope from any army for that matter(

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If human wave tactics work, why didn't it work in WW1?

                Both are meme.
                Nobody designed neither Blitzkrieg nor Deep Battle superficially. It's post naming of some military operations that happened in WWII.

                Also conditions of these operations doesn't exist anymore. WWII operations were shaped by force comparation: main bulk of the force (like 90%) was slow foot slogging infantry divisions, and 10% is fast high combat power armor and mechanized divisions. That created meta of high mobile, high tempo operations when this mobile force tried to cut off logistics of slow infantry force. Today there is no foot slogging milions size infantry force. All force is +100% motorized, there is no huge disparity in mobility that existed in WWII, so it's all history.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not really. The majority of WW2 fighting was done by foot soldiers, true. But the main push was almost always done by armored units when possible, for the simple fact that armored units can take machine gun fire while hordes of infantry can't. Tanks and dive bombers are the big reason WW1 and WW2 went from static warfare to lightning fast front line changes. In WW1, the allies actually saw a shift in the front line during the 100 days offensive, where they used combined arms (starting with a preliminary bombardment, having tanks lead the frontal assault to cut off the machine guns, have infantry then come and take the trenches, then have dive bombers kill the disorganized retreating men) Even Sabaton understands this shit "first in the line of fire, tanks leading the way" this is basic WW2 tactics: armored units lead the attack because they can take the fire, mass waves of infantry don't because they can't

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Did you actually read my post? I don't think so.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >They became masters at armored tactics by 1944
                Name one battle when Russians didn't lose more tanks than enemy

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I said armored tactics, not armored technology. The T-34 was a pretty shitty tank overall, as it was designed to be produced as much as humanly possible rather than actually be good as a tank itself. Soviet high command on the other hand became masters as using tanks in offensive battles

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In the current climate, you're just casting pearls before swine anon.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I probably am at this point. I should save it for israeliteTube

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Germans never diverted significant resources to the West.
          The bulk of their army was always in the East. Especially armor and artillery.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Germans never diverted significant resources to the West.
            Except 80% of their armor and aviation (also fun fact those units didn't even reach Normandy in time because they were bogged down by Allies Air Superiority).

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              In what case did this happen.
              The Germans moved a significant number of armor divisions into the West to push back at Caen, but they had an equal or greater number tied up in Ukraine at the time, chasing a diversion. While others were being pushed back by the actual Soviet army in Bagration.
              At no point was there more in the West than in the East.
              >https://ww2db.com/doc.php?q=331
              FD 51 prioritized stopping the push by the Anglo-American forces, but it was a temporary focus and again, the Soviet front was the main point of German arms and armor.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. The Russians are basically trying to win the long game: thanks to their incompetent leadership and outdated equipment, they failed to win the war decisively in the first few weeks. So they're relying HEAVILY on artillery to do the heavy lifting in terms of casualties (over seventy percent of the casualties are from artillery). Basically, shells are cheap, manpower isn't. The Russians have realized that they just need to wait for the Ukranians to run out of manpower. NATO can send them all the fancy toys the American taxpayer can afford, but Ukraine simply doesn't have the manpower to hold out forever. It's a crude strategy, but it seems to be working

        Well, as much manpower as you can conserve in total war anyway. Like I said, the vast majority of the casualties are from artillery, artillery has truly become the God of war

        Soviet doctrine wasn't just "throwing people at the enemy until they run out of bullets" Soviet high command were thinking strategically. Take operation bagration: Rokossovsky masterfully tricked the Germans into thinking he would attack army group south when he attacked army group center, with armored units leading the assault and the northern part cutting off army group north. It was an operational masterpiece that made the situation utterly desperate for the Germans. Or before the battle of Kursk where Zhukov set up fake air fields that the Germans would focus their dive bombing on, taking fighter focus away from the fight. My point is: Soviet doctrine was often wasteful, but they beat the Germans on the strategic level, not just on the manpower level

        >I hate that I am a moronic vatnik and that my moronic shithole keeps throwing human waves at things, so I will make shit up.
        >And if there ever is a rare example of Russian competence, I will swoon all over it and make it my shining star to hold up as a false standard of Russian incompetence

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Deep Battle works on the defensive, blitzing doesn't.

      The Nazis with their allies outnumbered the USSR for half the war. Stalin even gave direct orders in 1941 to stop wasting men in pointless attacks and the futile defense of ineffective positions.
      If the Soviets used "human waves", they would've bled manpower at a rate to run out of it before the Germans did. In fact "human waves" is literally a post-war cope by German generals, which influenced historiography by being the only source on the eastern front on this side of the iron curtain. They had to explain away how their flawless leadership somehow failed, and their "subhuman" opponents being "overwhelming" in an "underhanded" way is a convenient way to wash your own hands.
      Disregarding the fact that facing a stronger enemy with insufficient resources is generally considered a dumbass move, of course.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Based. While it's certainly true that Soviet tactics were often criminally wasteful of human life (the stats speak for themselves) the whole "human wave" myth is a Nazi cope that we believe because most of the history we got on the Eastern front came from the memoirs of retired Nazi generals, because the iron curtain kept a lot of info on the war from us

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/MNGCnR6.jpeg

          Deep Battle works on the defensive, blitzing doesn't.

          The Nazis with their allies outnumbered the USSR for half the war. Stalin even gave direct orders in 1941 to stop wasting men in pointless attacks and the futile defense of ineffective positions.
          If the Soviets used "human waves", they would've bled manpower at a rate to run out of it before the Germans did. In fact "human waves" is literally a post-war cope by German generals, which influenced historiography by being the only source on the eastern front on this side of the iron curtain. They had to explain away how their flawless leadership somehow failed, and their "subhuman" opponents being "overwhelming" in an "underhanded" way is a convenient way to wash your own hands.
          Disregarding the fact that facing a stronger enemy with insufficient resources is generally considered a dumbass move, of course.

          Year of our lord 2024.
          Puccia takes over Ukrainian villages after sending meatwaves, losing tens of thousands of people per village.

          >Rah I hate that pidors have been so besmirched in world war two where everybody said they used meatwaves
          >this is a lie
          >even though we know they started conscripting poles because they were running out of men by 45

          Frick you, is what I'm saying.
          Go cry on reddit

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone was running out of men pretty much from the outbreak of the war you fricking tard. It's called total war. You need as many people as possible to farm the crops, mine the materials, build the infrastructure, ship the materials, and produce them for war, men to staff the enormous armies you hold, and whatever is left goes to your army. You'll pretty soon find that you'll have generals coming up to you waving around a tin can for manpower

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              This is why Soviets send milions to die in pointless meat wave offensives in 1942-1943. Uwu.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1940's Soviet Union
            >2020's Russian Federation
            >these are the same

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >1940's Soviet Union
              >2020's Russian Federation
              >these are the same
              Russia has been controlled by the same secret police faction since the end of the Russian civil war, it has destroyed the country 3 times now from the inside, 4th collapse is currently being setup

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >1941
          >human waves are a myth
          >2022
          >Russians coin term "meat assault" to explain how Russians can lose tens of thousands of men for every village

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Meat wave" is a term that a Ukranian sniper came up with and was pushed by the western media.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >"Meat wave" is a term that a Ukranian sniper came up with
              big doubt

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you show me a single video or documented evidence of these meat waves in Russia? Do you have anything aside from news articles that don't link any field sources?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That was a Ukrainian Russian dumbass.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                They use the phrase "meat assaults," on Telegram constantly Anon.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > why are there so many dead people besides a single tank?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >another one

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you show me a single video or documented evidence of these meat waves in Russia? Do you have anything aside from news articles that don't link any field sources?

                Your lack of cultural understanding is shocking.
                Watch Enemy At The Gates, play Call of Duty 5: World At War, go listen to the things Americans consumed as propaganda back twenty, thirty years ago.
                We always thought the Soviets were massive fricking morons sending in meat waves.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Russians did human wave attacks in WWI, Russian civil war, Winter War, WWII and Chinese communists did them in WWII and Korean War.

                they absolutely fricking did them

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >666

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Where is the proofs? Pic related is Ukrainians, not proofs!

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                As you can see, there is nothing here indictive of meat assaults.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The results of a tactical advance, in no way a meat wave thrown at fortified positions.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its clearly the same picture a failed NATO assault

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Chinese communists did them in WWII
                ...how exactly? In case you absolute moron didn't realise, the Chicomms were a fricking guerilla movement during WWII. They didn't have enough men for a regular army, let alone one able to do manpower-heavy crap like that.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it was coined by Strelkov

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Stalin even gave direct orders in 1941 to stop wasting men in pointless attacks
        Uwu
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lyuban

        >and the futile defense of ineffective positions.
        Uwu
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >After the loss of Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic republics, Donetzk, and other areas we have much less territory, much fewer people, bread, metal, plants and factories. We have lost more than 70 million people, more than 800 million pounds of bread annually and more than 10 million tons of metal annually. Now we do not have predominance over the Germans in human reserves, in reserves of bread.
          If you'd ever actually read the fricking thing, it's a crackdown on abandoning cities, factories and farmland, because as it turns out, "fall back to the Urals" is not a viable method of fighting a defensive war in Russia. "Stop doing stupid counterattacks" and "stop running the frick away" are not mutually contradictory positions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You dumb.
            Order 227 produced exactly this problem: Soviets defending stupid positions. Because of the no retreat order Soveits were forced to stop and defend were Germans choose. Germans had no problem fall back a little and take comforttable position say occupying dominating heights. But Soviets due to Stalin's 227 panic order were forced to hug German positions and take defense in unfavorable positions. Germans took elevation - Soviets forced to stay at the base of this elevation where these positions are very vulnerable to observation and fire, and they can't fall back away form this trap because order 227.
            If you study Soviet WWII memoirs it's all over and over same pattern: Soveits assault some elevation over and over. How can it be? How Germans are such tactical geniuses that they always end in dominating positions and Soviets are forced to fight them from down up? If you ask this question in USSR during WWII you would face firing squad. SMART!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Stalin even gave direct orders in 1941 to stop wasting men in pointless attacks and the futile defense of ineffective positions
        Stalin was responsible for 700k men being encircled because he refused to give order to retreat. Shut the frick up and stop lying

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Stalin personally micromanaged every single facet of his armed forces
          Read the fricking orders yourself instead of being vague and accusatory.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, it's true that Stalin micromanaged the generald at first, but he gradually trusted them as the war turned in the favor of the Soviets.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I find it interesting that all of the tactics we read about in earlier eras, from Alexander and Hannibal all the way to Napoleon and Lee, are still used today but on the operational and strategic scale instead.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is probably because connunicatipn became easier and setpiece battles between armed formations are no longer the norm.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Schwerpunkt is less of a meme. Choosing the time and place of your breakthrough is always better than applying pressure and taking losses along a wide front until you can make a breakthrough.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      force concentration is the end-all, be-all of warfare and the basis of all strategy
      attacking in every area simply ensures you lose in detail

      even deep battle is about concentrating in a single spot, the only difference is that you pressure the enemy along multiple points first to test where the best place is to send the concentration
      airland keeps all their forces in reserve and only committing them when counter-attacking after the enemy has shown their hand

      whether on the offense, or defense, you always want a spear point not a thin line

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, concentration of forces is lot more dangerous these days with precision munitions and ISTAR

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, it's now concentration of a different means: of fires, drones, and electronics rather than men and vehicles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >force concentration is the end-all, be-all of warfa-ack!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >attack in dispersed waves
          >each one gets destroyed by the border patrol with no need for artillery
          no one ever won by treating war like a bruce lee movie where each unit courteously duels with each enemy unit 1 on 1

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in dispersed waves
            literally what the Ukrainians and Russians have been doing all war. And then both sides stand around scratching their heads wondering why they cant get a strategic breakthrough.

            US Staff Officers wargamed that shit out for the Ukranians and said
            >attack with everything on one front
            >it will hurt like shit but you will break through
            Ukranians ignored them and well they ground out some painful gains, good gains, but not a breakthrough. Meanwhile, Russian military thinking changes about as fast as a suns life cycle.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >attack in dispersed waves to probe defenses
            >artillery the ever loving frick out of said defenses
            >repeat until your probe gets through
            werked in bakhmut

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >attack in dispersed waves to probe defenses
              Each wave gets destroyed because they are locally outnumbered

              >artillery the ever loving frick out of said defenses
              Only works if youth artillery is concentrated and aimed at breaking a single point

              >repeat until your probe gets through
              Until your main maneuver force gets through

              Attacking piecemeal ensures being outnumbered by a numerically inferior force

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Typically the main benefit of heavy concentration is that you also concentrate all your DEFENSES as well. Russian's haven't figured that part out.
          Yes you'll get bombed/missiled/invaded to shit in the meantime, but the idea is your concentrated death ball moves fast enough to cut off and destroy the enemy logistic/command structure before that becomes an issue.
          >concentrate all anti-missile and anti-air in one place
          >move in all armor and artillery to the same location under the umbrella
          >incredibly heavy deadly fighting across the entire front as yooks have to hold off entire russian army using only lightly supported infantry
          >"might rooshia putches forward acrosss entire line, kiev in 3 days!"
          >death ball of tanks and fighter jets advances straight across their back line into Moscow and levels it in 8 hours
          >after initial massive gains russians run out of ammo and fuel and become totally helpless, their die, are captured, or flee east
          >meeting the concentrated death ball on the way BACK which traps them in a pincer and destroys them to the last man

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Blitzkrieg" actually describes the fundamentals of mechanised warfare, which is still in use today.
    "Deep Battle" was a Soviet strategy that plays to their particular strengths and weaknesses (large numbers of troops, but limited tactical flexibility).
    I'd say the fundamentals of "blitzkrieg" is far more applicable to modern strategies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      define what blitzkrieg is using any first part documentation that mentions it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >documentation
        here's one example:
        J.P. Harris, The Myth of Blitzkrieg
        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096834459500200306
        >define what blitzkrieg is
        IMHO, the popular conception of "Blitzkrieg" is an Allied interpretation of German WW2 mechanised warfare tactics.
        the actual German WW2 mechanised warfare tactics wasn't called "blitzkrieg" by German commanders.
        in both doctrines, the idea is to use tanks, artillery, tactical bombers and mechanised infantry to penetrate the enemy front line and attack key targets. however, there are differences in detail, such as in the targets expected to be attacked. in some Allied conceptualisations of "blitzkrieg" (e.g. J.F.C. Fuller's), the tanks would proceed to attack command centres. in German, Soviet, and some other Allied concepts (e.g. Montgomery's) the objective would be to cut supply lines and starve out large numbers of enemy troops, or attack other strategic targets.

        Harris asserts that German blitzkrieg did not emphasise combat air support, but the evidence he gives is unconvincing. The fact is that Hitler and Goering always prioritised operational and tactical targets, and except for the Blitz offensive, Luftwaffe bombing was always aimed at degrading enemy operational capability, whether it was attacking troops on the ground or oil storage facilities. It was rare for truly strategic targets (e.g. manufacturing) to be attacked.

        with additions and changes due to advances in technology, mechanised warfare today is still based on these principles. so long as the new technology is explained to them, the likes of Guderian, Patton, and Montgomery would probably right at home with operational concepts today.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonynous

    Hey! I made that image a long time ago!

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blitzkrieg is speed is everything and you much capture an objective now, deep battle is you aren't in such a hurry and want lower risk / losses.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit, the amount of typos makes me look ESL here.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >deep battle is you [...] want lower risk / losses

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+F: Bewegungskrieg
    >No results found

    /k/ has fallen. Billions must die

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How would deep battle work when you don't have x2-x3 times enemy numbers?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      they didnt need to think about that because the USSR had numerical advantage over NATO up until its collapse

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's because the USSR had more men mobilized than NATO. In the event of an actual war, NATO would outnumber the USSR (particularly thanks to the enormous manpower from America)

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what you know as blitzkrieg was ultimately a foreign name put on german offensive strategy in the East, so its the bigger meme here solely due to the name

    as for them being a meme in content they were both produced by officers who had a solid theory that was capable of being put into practice by large armies with differing levels of competency so they were both bretty gud

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a single well targeted and planned attack committing all resources
    >spam unlimited resources until someone gets through

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both are meme.
    Nobody designed neither Blitzkrieg nor Deep Battle superficially. It's post naming of some military operations that happened in WWII.

    Also conditions of these operations doesn't exist anymore. WWII operations were shaped by force comparation: main bulk of the force (like 90%) was slow foot slogging infantry divisions, and 10% is fast high combat power armor and mechanized divisions. That created meta of high mobile, high tempo operations when this mobile force tried to cut off logistics of slow infantry force. Today there is no foot slogging milions size infantry force. All force is +100% motorized, there is no huge disparity in mobility that existed in WWII, so it's all history.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Israel and the USA literally adapted German Schwerpunkt principles post war.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/'s historical knowledge is really just limited to Enemy at the Gates and Band of Brothers huh?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well as it turns out enemy at the gates is a documentary instead of a war drama.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Deep Battle was the Soviet attempt of deploying large mechanized forces while compensating the inherent weaknesses of the Soviet Army like non existing tactically flexibility and recon. Of course the loses the Soviets suffered were high and there was rarely a case where Deep Battle archived its goal.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Germans were stupidly effective counter attacking any Soviet breakthrough through the war causing massive loses for the Soviets.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends. Manstein was a genius as far as strategy went, particularly when it came to defense, so he was able to stop Soviet breakthroughs in 1942 pretty effectively. But once late 1943 came around, there was really no stopping the allies after all the losses they took

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Deep Battle
    more of a meme blitzkrieg was just corps combined arms

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    high iq vs low iq

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Deep Battle requires such a massive manpower and materiel advantage that it's functionally useless. Blitzkrieg is at least conceptually sound.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Manpower advantage wasn't an issue for the Soviet Union. It would have been interesting to see what happened in the eastern front if they hadn't genocided their entire officer corps right before WWII.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They'd actually have an airforce, for one. Frankly, if someone had Stalin shot before assigning him to one of the most influential positions in the Soviet Union then the whole thing might have come out at least tolerable.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blitzkrieg was more small scale (yadayada wasnt called blitzkrieg whatever) and relied on initiative and a schwerpunkt (focus point where forces would converge, encirclement would follow), examples of blitzkreig tactics late war in courland etc without any real focus fail. Deep battle is good for literal million+ men formations and rely on just bashing against the opposing force and exploiting breakthroughs, but on a scale where individual initiative and skill are less important

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't what Napoleon used proto-deep battle?

    Meaning an all out assault across the entire line of engagement using "line" troops supported by massed artillery and with elite units held back to exploit any weaknesses.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kind of, yes, and for similar reasons: he had a massive conscript army that wasn't particularly well-trained

      >an all out assault across the entire line of engagement
      not really
      he would select weak points to attack based on objectives, terrain, enemy dispositions; METT-T in other words
      >using "line" troops supported by massed artillery and with elite units held back to exploit any weaknesses
      this part does resemble Deep Battle somewhat
      one of Napoleon's innovations was the Grand Batterie, the massing and centralised subordination of all artillery under the commander's (his) personal control to be used in support of the overall objective in a single fire plan, instead of distributed organically to battalion commanders to use as they saw fit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      Napoleons battles didn't have scale and time to disrupt logistics. Main goal of the WWII maneuver warfare was disrupting logistic lines inside enemy territory so you suffocate units that stayed behind breakthrough.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blitzkrieg wasn't a real thing and Deep Battle in 1944 has basically nothing in relation to deep battle as formulated in the 30s

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Deep Battle combined with ubiquitous drone warfare could be a huge deal. Instead of losing mobiks you lose $5 hunks of plastic. As soon as they get non-los control so they can operate behind enemy lines it's over for conventional warfare.
    >massive wall of drones constantly probing the entire front, bombing and harassing everything they find
    >any spot with weak defenses gets bypassed, entire enemy country is saturated with suicide drones
    It'll be like those biplane bombings, only instead of scouting out and planning strikes on specific infrastructure they just fly in a line a thousand miles across and individually target anything that looks important. And then the next one comes, and the next one, and the next one...
    It's like low cost strategic saturation bombing. And there's absolutely no way to stop it since if there's even a tiny crack in your defensive lines they'll just pour through it like water through a sieve.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Considering deep battle is still being used in Ukraine today I would say it's the latter

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      considering "blitzkrieg" is the basis of most strategies of NATO armies I would say the former

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Considering that the 3 day military operation is over 2 years old, I don't think that's an endorsement.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Blitzkrieg
    >use intelligence and recon to find a weak point in the enemy line and then create a local superiority by concentrating highly mobile equipment and personnell to be able exploit it and this way attack and win against numerically superior opponents and suffering less losses even as the attacker
    >Deep Battle
    >human waves until enemies run out of ammo throughout the whole front, repeat after enemy retreats to the next defensive line, suffer immense casualties but not my problem
    Yeah

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Blitzkrieg isn't even a military doctrine.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im getting real tired of muh deep battle and muh blitzkrieg. Neither really exists and of the two deep battle is the most fictional.
    >attack with everything
    >get some breakthroughs
    >flood the breakthrough with shit
    >that shit keeps attacking until you cant anymore
    Its just blitzkreig without the tactical control or co-ordination but on a vastly bigger scale, and even then (as I said) blitzkrieg isnt really a thing either.

    Had Hitler not been completely moronic and allowed his General strategic mobility muh doop battur would have been a fricking squib. Conservsly, had they faced a properly mechanized opponent, like the Allies, it would have been a squib again because their formations move faster than yours so your deep battle would have ended up being a bunch of deep pockets getting raped to death.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *