The latest Blitzkrieg was the recent US invasion of Iraq.
Same tactics, superior air-power and lightening advances by the armour.
2007-04-20 10:52:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Murray H 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
There was no exact moment, and it has reappeared under the right circumstances.
The last days of teh 1973 Arab-Israeli war were probably the most recent blitzkrieg against a real enemy, or both recent Iraq wars (2003 and 1991).
After the phenomenal run of success the Germans had 1939-41, the world gradually learnt the ways to combat thsi type of warfare- defence in depth primarily, with strong anti-tank defences, and/or focusssing on separating the elements of attack: for instance artillery fire could separate the attacking tanks from their infantry, leaving them vulnerable to anti-tank guns or enemy infantry with bazooka-like weapons.
After 1941, most major battles involved a period of breaking through defence lines arrayed in depth, to allow the armour to break out into the rear areas. At El Alamein, the British took 10 days to break into the German/Itlian position, but once this was done they advanced many kms. In the Battle of Normandy, this 'break in' phase took weeks- but then Patton was advancing at a fantastic rate- only fuel and supply were limiting factors. At Kursk, the Germans never made it through the Russian defences.
Defence in depth combined with better anti-tank weapons, and better communications, combined to make this sort of dramatic armoured breakthrough harder to pull off. Much of the early success was due to psycological factors- once defenders knew what they were up against (and of course the defenders were often the Germans!), they kept their cool.
Blitzkrieg is only relevant in conflicts between two conventional opponents. Many wars are guerrilla wars or other unconventional conflicts where blitzkrieg is not appropriate.
2007-04-19 21:14:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by llordlloyd 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you're talking about the German 'lighting war' of WWII, it had to be during the cold winter months at the gates of Moscow in 1941. The German Wehrmact came to a screeching halt as their blitz was doomed by the cold snows of Russia and the fresh Siberian divisions that were unleashed on them. The blitz was gone for sure in the following year in the rubble of Stalingrad, as Hitler wasted the 6th Army in a static urban war....which was definitely not a blitz tactic.
Following Stalingrad, the Germans were on a continual defensive posture, even considering Kursk, the 3rd Battle of Kharkov and the Battle of the Bulge....
2007-04-20 00:23:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
As you may know, Blitz in German means lightning and, of course, Krieg means war. Your previous respondant is correct in his response when the designation is a tactic for land warfare.
The tactic involved lightning strikes by fast moving tanks, trucks and even motorcycles, supported by tactical air strikes in support of the ground troops. The enemy line was broken, and then the columns that pierced the line circled behind the enemy and atacked flank and rear of the segmented force and took them. Then they could come through in a rapid flood.
But the word "Blitz" was also the term used to designate the German night bombing of London, England beginning in the summer of 1940 and continuing into the fall.
It appears to have started inadvertantly. In August, 1940 a German bomber on a mission to bomb the sea port in the lower Themes River got lost and wandered over the city of London. Evidently to eliminate weight and accelerate his escape from the Hurricanes and Spitfires that rose to attack him, he salvoed his bomb load on the city.
Churchill was furious, and among his many catastrophic interferances in the war, he sent a flight of Wellington bombers to strike German cities. Hitler retaliated in kind, and nightly for several months German bombers appeared over London and droped high explosive bombs and incindiary bombs that destroyed and burned much of London. The loss of property and life was horrible. Some Children were sent to Canada and the U.S. But the RAF fighters took such a toll of German bombers that Hitler gave up late in the fall.
The Luftwaffe had the same problem we were to have: the German fighter escorts, ME-109s and FW-190s could not carry enough fuel to remain with the bombers and engage the RAF fighters for more than a few minutes before they had to return to the continent. The the RAF fighters then tore the German flights apart.
Though there were occasional air raids as late as '44, the Blitz itself ended by '41.
Then came the V-2 "Buzz Bombs" and a bit later the V-1 rockets that took so many lives in the last months of the war.
2007-04-19 22:06:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by john s 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In truth, it didn't. It morphed into what is now called "Combined Arms" by the US military. Now using a variety of units (air, infantry, and artillery) all in one battle is considered common sense, but it was revolutionary back int the 1930's.
Now instead of bombers hitting armor and then bringing in armor and infantry, the process is more complex. First bombers blind SAM's (surface to air missiles). Then fighters attain air supremacy. Then bombers hit command and control centers. Then bombers hit enemy formations (armor, infantry and artillery). And then Mechanized Infantry takes the territory. And armor and infantry hold it.
2007-04-19 21:49:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by adphllps 5
·
0⤊
0⤋