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. Ward 
PHONE:	(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"