i was thinking the other day, and i think that the germans wrote the book on mechanized warfare, their fast "blitzkrieg" movements combined with their almost unstoppable armored force really put a hurting on whoever they were after. then i got to thinking even more (my head started to hurt after this one) and i roughly compared the US army in ww2 to our modern day army, and i said, wow, A LOT of changes have occured, and i asked myself, could the US army have taken a lot of its tactics etc.. from the german army in ww2?

just a lil military philosophy for you guys to think about
shout back!
-shain

It is true that modern NATO militaries owe a lot to the German army of WW2. This was mostly due to studies into miltary effectiveness of the war. It was found that despite overwhelming odds the german army was able to fend of the largest alliance ever formed for several years and in the process give it the odd kick in the teeth. As such NATO commanders looked to the german army as an example of how to defend against the overwhelming odds that the Warsaw Pact armies had over NATO. To illustate this point for many years Colonel Hans Von Luck of 21 Panzer Division often accompanied Sandhurst staff rides to normandy in order to explain the german role in the campaign.

As to the point that the germans 'created' mechanized warfare that is a deep rooted myth of history. the germans learnt off the british and to a certain extent the soviets. The roots of german blitzkreig can be seen in the works of Fuller, Liddell Hart, Hobart, Martel and a great number of other british theorists of the 1920's.

Ross is correct.

The theory of 'blitzkrieg' (a worthless press term) is to be found in the prewar works of several British thoerists on armoured warfare. The GErmans were merely the first to put those ideas into practice. I would recommend Guderians book as he fully explains the importance of the British work on the subject and its role in his development of armoured warfare.

However the myth of the mobile German fighting machine is just that. The German army at the start of WW2 relied on horses for the majority of its transport needs as it did to a greater or lesser extent for the whole war. Germany was not the mechanised behemoth that propagande portrays. A quick look at the divisions involved in Poland will show this without doubt...

In actual fact if memory serves me right the term 'Blitzkrieg was created by Time magazine in 1941 to describe the german victories.

Slightly earlier...

I think it was Beormunster Radio in Switzerland that first used the phrase to describe the German attacks in Poland.

But it certainly wasnt a German!

Yes, the term Blitzkrieg is applicable, as it means "Lightning War" in Englisch. I do feel that so many armies owe quite a bit to the Germans of WWII. I do not condone their actions or intentions at all, but Respect is definetly due.

To some extent, Blitzkrieg was a dogma forced on the Germans. Hitler knew that Germany's position in Europe and it's economic state required quick easy victories. A prolonged war was bound to result in German defeat, as surely as it had in the Great War. The Blitzkrieg concept only worked, however, against an enemy that was either outclassed technologically (like Poland who had few tanks) or emotionally (like France, who, after the slaughter of WW1 on the whole thought defensively).
America & Russia learned quickly. Russia matched the Wehrmacht's equipment, with tanks like the T34 & JS series. America just out produced Germany with overwhelming superiority of numbers. They also quickly assimilated the concept of the all arms combat team, the American Combat Command in Armoured divisions corresponding to the Kampfgruppe. This was something we British were somewhat slow to learn.
From the German view, America fought a rich man's war, one of material against men. The idea of carpet bombing areas of resistance was alien to German thinking, which expected the infantry to solve their own problems. But it worked for the Allies because they could afford it.
By 1944, the Germans had lost the air superiority they needed for their tactics to work. However the average German Landser continued to fight well. Post war American analysis discovered that man for man, the Germans inflicted casualities at the rate of one and a half to one as against those they suffered.
However, much of the Blitzkrieg concept quickly became out of date. As with naval warfare, it quickly became obvious that the aeroplane had become highly significant on the battlefield, and the bazooka type concepts gave the infantryman an edge against armour.