What is a proper way to counter blitzkrieg in standard 3:1 attacker vs. defender force ratio? Is the only way to counter blitzkrieg possible by aerial supremacy plus basically putting more stuff and men in the field?
Inb4 attrition battles like Moscow or Stalingrad.
Does blitzkrieg defeat any form of defense as long the defender is numerically inferior? (surely not, but I'm wondering)
With a Davy
>how to stop blitz
The same way you stop any advance (while literally spitting in the face of the geneva convention on account of how "lines of advance" and shit like that works).
>entrench your forward position
>entrench your fallback position
>hide heavy weapons teams & infantry squads in hidden pockets between your forward & fallback positions
>allow the enemy to break through your forward trenchline
>allow a portions of it to be encircled
>allow the enemy breakthrough to reach your fallback trenchline
>make it look like you are desperately consolidating
>execute "final protective fire" at extremely close range using flechettes out of whatever artillery you have at your fallback positions to pause or shred the worst bands of blitzers
>launch a "gas attack"
>(it's just smoke bombs, not nerve gas)
>enemy forces still must adhere to their s.o.p.
>just as they are scrambling to put on their gas masks...
>suddenly & simultaneously order by prearranged signal all of the troops you have hidden in pockets between the two trenchlines to rise up and assault the enemy from behind and within their positions
>overextended enemy now encircled
>chaotic melee ensues
>hammer & anvil
>reinforce this part of your line by bringing troops rapidly down through the corridor between your two trenchlines
>artillery & cas cuts off any possibility of the enemy reinforcing their overextended blitzers
>enemy pockets easily crushed between closing jaws
>your soldiers win extra hard if they're more coked up than the other guys
>t. former infantry and spec ops candidate
Defense in depth
Mobile defense/Flexible Defense
Attack first
Those 3 are the main ways of dealing with blitzkreig.
Go back to the writefag thread faggot.
What Hitler didn't understand is that blitzkreig only really works in a relatively small country like the ones in western Europe. Pour a big bucket of water out in a small closet, and the whole floor will be covered, with no dry place to stand. pour the same bucket out in a ballroom, and you'll only cover a piece of it. That's the problem. The Wehrmacht poured itself out onto the vast plains of Russia, and it just wasn't enough.
A counterattack on the flanks of the line of advance will encircle the spearhead and defeat it. Examples: almost every instance of stopping an operational attack in WW2 that didn't involve attrition.
You might know blitzkrieg by its more modern term: combined arms. There's nothing special about blitzkrieg, it was simply a term made up by the allies to explain their defeats.
downloaded
tactical nuclear weapons on the focal point
Encircle the encirclers.
>Mexicans know how to build windmills
I know this is fantasy but really nigga?
Does hammer and anvil even work in modern war? I thought we do L formations.
>How do you stop blitzkrieg?
Deep operation.
Auftragstaktik was the real game changer back in the days.
Mexico looks comfy, the other side looks like Metropolis.
>Blitzkrieg didn't work in large countries
Tell that to the Soviets who couldn't defeat a broken Wehrmacht after Kursk because the generals and officiers applied the principles of the Blitzkrieg in an outstanding way.
blitzkrieg was just propaganda
What are you trying to say? That Soviets were unable to blitzkrieg the Nazis in 1944?
>what is defense in depth
ITT we observe most of Jow Forums is incapable of understanding post-1970s war (as demonstrated in every S400s > all or tanks = obsolete thread).
OP: instead of one line, the front is a series of strong points and pickets. these call fire on the advancing forces. the remaining forces which penetrate between the strong points are then countered by the mobile reserve.
Two ways. “Phase line”, and “guerrilla”.
“Phase line”
>pre build defensive positions behind each other.
>Enable the terrain to allow your soldiers to safely evac from each phase line
>the goal is to give maximum damage to the enemy while forcing them to overextend
>if successful, there momentum will drain while yours is charging. Think of yourself as a snake coiling up more and more until you spring.
“Guerrilla”
>a bit riskier but could yield devastating damage to your enemy
>have a large leave behind force and have them let the attackers pass them
>there goal is to destroy the attackers reserves and logistics
>simultaneously, smaller, hit and run forces do exactly just that towards the main attacking force
>never get bogged down, never give them a target
>the goal is not attrition but to attack Achilles heels in there force
>if both “teams” accomplish there job. Than the attacker will stall and be crippled.
Because in the end...what good is a tank, if it has no ammo and fuel? No clickity clank, go get dat flank boi.
With the English Channel.
Like, BBC?
this reminds me of some call of duty game
No a truck of peace.
I haven't seen this edit before.
Counterattack on a narrow front and keep attacking until you enter the enemies logistics channels and then do murder let them flow past forwards while you drive through them like a knife. Their ability to utilise fac and artillery in combined arms ops is compromised when you are in proximity. Drive into them with aggression. The aim is not to hold ground but to kill the enemy and above all move forward
Defense in depth and a big reserve available to cut off any enemy axis of advance, which necessitates good C&C.
Any other answer is a meme answer.
>Defense in depth and a big reserve available to cut off any enemy axis of advance, which necessitates good C&C.
That supposes symmetrical forces not a 3/1 attacker advantage.
A shit ton of T34s.
Like fucking thousands.
Each battalion level commander be given destroy-AO last strike weapon.
Basically.
Send in millions of refugees. Only works on cucked nations, which are coincidentally also the ones who have historically been involved in blitzkrieg wars.
More static defence crap against mobile warfare. +'nam meme. Combined arms ops are not simple affairs. Staying in static defence is the expected response. Fuck it up, centre advances while the flanks fall back and reinforce the advance. Attack move forward and don't stop as you diminish their combined arms advantage by being in proximity. Patton shits on you all.
3 to 1 disadvantage while on the defensive is nothing special if you don't let yourself become pinned on terrain by idiotically trying to cling to a line.
Just doing defense in depth while maintaining a small but very mobile tank reserve able to punctually reverse the strength ratio should be enough to make any enemy commander think twice before trying to become the next Rommel.
Defend in planned actions when you are expected t advance. Attack aggressively when outnumbered and in defence. Beeline straight for their CnC and logistics and expect 80 casualties but to cripple their offensive capacity and knock their force out of the fight with 50% causalities. It's we're all going to heaven lads time.
Have you tried asking nicely?
A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.
George S. Patton
Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
George S. Patton
There needs to be serious consideration whether the area is worth defending. Holding ground for the sake of holding ground is a ridiculous idea in modern warfare, losing forces and especially getting forces encircled by enemy local superiority is very often not worth it if the forces are mobile enough to avoid it
>Does blitzkrieg defeat any form of defense as long the defender is numerically inferior?
The answer is no.
Also have air superiority so the support aircraft dont fuck up your troops morale, communication and infrastructure
Attack, attack attack, drive straight through the attacking force on a narrow front and keep going. Break the encirclement before it can happen. Destroy all enemy expectations. Take the initiative from the enemy and own it.
We must have a superiority complex. Always attack. Never surrender.
George S Patton
Wars are not won by defensive tactics.
George S Patton
Forget this goddamn business of worrying about our flanks, but not to the extent we don’t do anything else. Some goddamned fool once said that our flanks must be secured and since then sons of bitches all over the world have been going crazy guarding their flanks. We don’t want any of that in the Third Army.
George S Patton
don’t want to get any messages saying that, ‘We are holding our position.’ We’re not holding anything! … We’re not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy.
George S Patton
We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy.
George S Patton
I told him… a prompt attack with three was better than waiting for six – particularly when I did not [from] where I could get the other three. … I am sure that this early attack was of material assistance in producing our victory.
George S Patton
I felt that… it was not necessary to hold a reserve, but to attack with everything we had.
George S Patton
Enemy numerical advantages in combined arms and attack planning on forces in assumed defensive positions are mitigated by slicing forward into the enemy on a narrow front and closing with them.
Quoting a Burger general, who never had to face an enemy of equal strenght, never had supply line problems, basically never had faced a challenge.
This is basically Attack-move general.
Patton was sent by heaven to destroy the barbarians and only the folly of men stopped him doing to the Russians what he did to the Nazis. One of the greatest commanders that ever lived beside Napoleon, who also stove to attack as did the much lesser talent Rommel..
By having your forces spread in forests so the attacker doesnt have a force do encircle in the first place. Then when they overextend themselves you hit flanks and shit with tactical gorilla hit and runs.
If you have supply problems I feel bad for ya son; Burgers got problems but logistics ain't one.
>There's nothing special about blitzkrieg, it was simply a term made up by the allies to explain their defeats
>Quoting a Burger general, who never had to face an enemy of equal strength
3rd army spent 281 days of incessant victorious combat, penetrations have advanced further in less time than any other army in history. It fought its way a cross 24 major rivers and innumerable steams and liberated and conquered more than 82,000 square miles of territory including 1500 cities and towns and some 12,000 un-inhabited places. The 3rd Army captured in battle 956,000 of the enemy and killed or wounded over 500,000 others. Patton was the only allied general who terrified the Germans
After his campaign in Sicily, Patton was the Allied general the Germans regarded as “their most dangerous adversary in the field,”
We regarded general Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies. . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon’s basic tenet — activité, vitesse — vitesse.
”
General Gunther Blumentritt
I see being Russian you have no response. The great shame was that Patton was not permitted to burn Moscow to ash and hang stalin.
Move fast and in a direction the enemy never expects. The chance of taking losses is too great to fight on a battle site which pleases the enemy.
George S Patton
Checked and fpbp
>Dear Princess Celestia.
>Today I have learned about another thing that Jow Forums is incapable of understanding. This time, it's warfare strategies. Jow Forums sure is full of dense motherfuckers.
>t. Your faithful student, Twilight Sparkle.
Don't put a massive fucking hole in the maginot line
>"if you move don't be a literal original meaning retard"
>"don't march into a trap"
>"avoid fights in conditions favorable for the enemy"
Holy shit you sure did take some real revolutionary ideas from ol' Patton. You probably have extremely high IQ to comprehend it. Not everyone would be smart enough to see such deep concepts.
Blitzkrieg was revolutionary in 1939. Nowadays it’s pretty much standard combined arms tactics.
Except there's little to no evidence to prove that the Germans even knew who Patton was...
import a bunch of arabs and let your military budget collapse to the point you can't afford to wage an offensive
if only you had properly spelled their we would have had something
Planes and artillery. Hit em with that 3d chess my nigga.
It was revolutionary in 1918. It should have been SOP for all armies by 1939, but the French were too busy being socialist turtles, the British were distracted by India, and the Burgers were busy making hootch out of sugar and bread yeast under their bed.
Do you know how hard it is?
I feel like condemning your own guys to certain death as bait will harm morale
Pre-emptive nuke, air supremacy and have 3x more dudes blitz their blitz
like, kinda flaccid i guess?
why do you ask?
The enemy masses, you strike that mass with tactical nuclear weapons, and then clean up with ground attack aircraft. It's been doctrine for a 1/2 century or more, hasn't it?
>all these people thinking that "doctrine" means a literal strategic SOP
Just...
To stop a Blitzkrieg?
Have a lightly-held forward line and a strongly held main line. Keep a mobile reserve. Let the blitzkrieg through and when you have identified the main thrust cut off their supply line. Don't engage head-on. Let them capture empty space and run out of fuel.
Like he could do any of that when he was numerically inferior, lacked basic supplies, had no air force, were scaping the barrel for manpower using old men and chlldren like the Germans when he fought them.
That is only halfway feasible on a small scale and impossible on any sort of operational scale.
The thing is, a blitzkrieg would more than likely smash through the first line and pursue your withdrawing infantry to the second line, negating your ability to use massed, close range, artillery without serious friendly fire casualties and giving your troops no time to prepare for the oncoming assault. Chances are, the whole time your second line is tied up with the advancing assault, the blitz would also have units moving to flank or just encircle your second line, trapping your fire support in the process.
You basically just came up with a strategy to take as many attackers with you before being overrun.
You don't have to soak the whole ballroom, just where the people are standing.