SPERRO

The theory of of Blitzkreig, as most of us know, was a concept that had been formulated by the German military, and was instrumental in the combat sucess of the german forces. The fact that this concept was born at a period coinciding with WW2 is to my thinking, pure coincedental.

Has anyone thought about the possible consequences of WW2 without this concept?. What would have transpired? etc.

What is the forums view on this speculative scenario?

funakison

No Blitzkrieg means no panzer divisions, tanks are relegated to infantry support weapons.
It is possible but unlikely that The Germans could still attack through the Ardennes and gain bridgeheads over the Meuse river, but there everything slows down. There is no rapid breakout form the German bridgeheads, giving the allies time to regroup and contain the danger.
What happens next is difficult to say. A repeat of WW1, possibly but the poor fighting quality, and low morale of allied troops together with a cimbersome chain of command have to be considered. IMHO the luftwarfe`s air superioroty could have been the deciding factor.

SPERRO

I think that the tank would still reach its historical development and, with axis air superiority, the allies would be on the back foot. By mid war, Blitzkreig had become dead wood anyway, its surprise tactic had lost its momentum.

Apachewarlord

It would have turned into an infantry fight, and the French had much more infantry, giving France the win. Of course, what Funakison about the German infantry superiority and the luftwaffe could give Germany the win. So it would be a close fight, i'll say that Germany takes France though, it just happens much slower. From then on Germany is deader then dead though.

astafjevs

I would have thought the war on the 'Western Front' would have become a stalemate fairly quickly, and with nobody in the West wanting a repeat of WW1 it would have ended promptly with France's borders intact, and the 'Eastern Front' becoming a fight to the death between the Soviet Union and Germany.

So a bit like what actually happened anyway, but probably with less aerial bombing of cities in the UK by the Luftwaffe and in Germany by the RAF and an even more Soviet-dominated post-war Europe, right up to the French border (and quite likely beyond it, eventually...)

funakison

if Germany becomes bogged down in France, i am not at all sure there is an Eastern front. Hitler may well have despised Communism, but he was also a product of the first world war knew what a war on two fronts meant.

astafjevs

You might well be right. Or Stalin might have thought, 'taking Poland was easy, let's keep going...'

pugsville

Blitzkrieg is a vague term, a better definition is needed.

Combined Arms
Deep penetration
Storm trooper tactics (ala ww1 infiltrate weak points etc)
Armored Warfare (Panzer Division armored concentration)

There is also the German strategic concept of "blitzkrieg" as short sharp wars, that made their belief in a short war string, thus failure to prepare for long war, effecting their training, replacement doctrines, development of tanks and planes, where the concept led to a failure in the German systems to cope with a longer war.

The British & French forces didnt fight badly in 1940 in general (some second line french divisons did fight badly but first line divisions like the only real armored battle the difference in quality is much less than is generally made of it)

The Allied problems in 1940 were bad planning, poor communications (mainly the french) bad leadership and control.

Earl_of_Rochester

Probably something similar to the first time round, the Schlieffen Plan was exactly the same as Plan Yellow in all but name.

Belisarius

What everyone overlooks is that the Russians had developed combined arms armoured warfare into a fine art in the 1920's and 30's, so assuming no Stalinist purges, you'd still get "blitzkrieg" but it would be called "молниеносной войны" instead.