Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!purdue!gatech!amdcad!military From: cew@venera.isi.edu Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Learning in War Message-ID: <27529@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 28 Sep 89 07:12:16 GMT Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California Lines: 31 Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com From: cew@venera.isi.edu In article <27443@amdcad.AMD.COM> you write: >Note that the German Blitzkrieg of the 40s was influenced strongly by >the writings in the 20s of B.H. Liddell-Hart, a British military >historian and theorist. There were several developers of blitzkrieg tactics. In addition to those already mentioned, Charles De Gaulle comes to mind as I recall memories of what I learned of these things back when I had more time for them. He was the proponent of these tactics within the French military. (They ignored him.) I also recall that blitzkrieg was a synthesis of two developments coming out of WWI. The British contribution, tanks, has already been mentioned. The other was a German change in infantry tactics. Instead of days and days of artillery followed by mass movement of troops, they used a short artillery barrage followed by a rather quick advance of what they called "shock troops." (From what I read, these tactics worked rather well and Germany would likely have won the war if it were not for the arrival of large numbers of fresh American troops to stiffen the line of the exhausted French and British.) What became blitzkrieg was a combination of shock troops, armor and aircraft. ARPA: Craig E. WardPHONE: (213)822-1511 ext. 111 USPS: USC Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1100 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Slogan: "nemo me impune lacessit"