3 ms·

> Military theorists have long described the defense as the strongest form of war, and current doctrine agrees. Indeed - one of the first wars fought with mod

> Military theorists have long described the defense as the strongest form of war, and current doctrine agrees. Indeed - one of the first wars fought with modern rifling, the American Civil War, had General Lee learn this lesson in a very hard way on the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg, in a failed infantry assault known as "Pickett's Charge."[0] Lee mistakenly attacked a position that was very easily defensible by Union artillery on faulty theory that it would be weakened due to a (failed) artillery barrage that happened previously. The Union correctly predicted Lee would attack there, and he sent over 12,000 men in a futile assault that resulted in 50% casualties in less than 1 hour, one of the bloodiest hours of the entire war. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge

runamuck 3y ago
Good point. For a counter point, the German Blitzkrieg helped them get France in WW2.
- georgeecollins 3y ago
  Even more modern example: The little green men who seized Ukraine.
  - llamaimperative 3y ago
    Eh, seized a small sliver and failed with extremely high casualties to seize a much larger chunk. The botched invasion was nothing like the German Blitzkrieg.
- asdasdsddd 3y ago
  Only worked because armor was so dominant and anti armor wasn't there yet.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sushibowl 3y ago
    This is in my opinion an oversimplification. Generally, the success of blitzkrieg had more to do with speed and coordination than the strength of armour. A combination of mechanised infantry, tanks, and close air support were instrumental to the tactics. German tanks were the only ones universally equipped with radio units at the start of the war.
    - llamaimperative 3y ago
      And, counterintuitively, lack of coordination. Blitzkrieg units were uniquely autonomous and trusted to meet higher level objectives how they saw fit rather than following a recipe book written weeks before and miles away from the action.
      - fyt2024 3y ago
        the ghost division :-)
      - asdasdsddd 3y ago
        The point is that tanks at the time were faster(along with mechanized infantry) and virtually unstoppable past enemy lines. This is pretty much unprecedented which allowed them to basically take strategic objectives uncontested. This would not happen today because the exposed tanks would be taken out by relatively cheap anti tank missiles.
        llamaimperative 3y ago
        There were several innovations bundled into Blitzkrieg so I don't think it's productive to clarify what the point is. Virtually unstoppable armor helped, extreme local coordination helped, and extreme general decoupling helped. All of these factors are relevant to Blitzkrieg's success.
        livueta 3y ago
        Afaik, while better anti-tank weapons did come about during the war, a lot of it was also to do with adapting tactics and usage of existing weapons to counter the new "meta". For example, the flak 88 and the 90mm M1 were originally intended for use as antiaircraft weapons and were widely deployed as early as 1936-38. They just so happened to also be excellent antitank weapons, once people figured out how to deploy them as such.
  - sabarn01 3y ago
    The british and French assumed the germans were going to swing though belgium again as they had done in WW1. Also they spread their tanks out as infantry support the germans had concentrated tank units.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    No. There was relatively little actual fighting during the BLitzkrieg. It was about speed and the cutting of communications (in the military sense of roads and bridges rather than radio and telephone). France also had staggeringly poor command structures and they were so invested in the Maginot Line scenario that they simply didn't take the invasion seriously at first. Surprisingly, one of the best histories of Blitzkrieg I've read was a pop-history book (just called 'Blitzkrieg') by Len Deighton, better known for his spy novels. What it lacks in detail, biographical material and so on is made up for by its broad scope, going from industrial production and methods during the interwar rearmament period through to the logistics of the BEF evacuation at Dunkirk.
  - vondur 3y ago
    I think French tank commanders lacked radio to coordinate their movements.
- zeteo 3y ago
  Just because the defense is stronger doesn't guarantee it will always win. Take two sports teams with different levels of skill, for example. In a single game, the team considered weaker can pull off a surprise win. However, over a span of several games, the stronger team will usually pull ahead. In war, various factors, like the element of surprise, can allow the offense to temporarily overcome an inherently stronger defense. In 1940, the Germans quickly overran the French by catching them off guard tactically and strategically. The French couldn't adapt their defense quickly enough and suffered too many crucial losses early on. Next year, the Soviets fared even worse than the French initially; but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks. The French themselves had a similar experience in WW1: after initially surviving for two hard years, they gave the German attackers a very bloody nose at Verdun.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    >but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks. At Kursk as your first example? I agree that the battle of Kursk showed the Germans how their best tanks could be crushed, but it's not a good example of your point as I understand it. Firstly because the main reason for victory wasn't so much the ability to destroy German tanks. The Soviets already had this well before July of 1943. Instead victory was because they knew German attack planning in advance and were able to prepare an incredibly robust defense in depth against them while also concealing a superbly equipped counterattack. Secondly, Kursk isn't the best example because the Battle of Stalingrad much earlier showed how it was possible to stop and then destroy a powerful, well equipped German Army with a tenacious defense and then even mount a ferocious counter offensive (operation Uranus). Part of the success of Stalingrad for the Soviets was also due to a major earlier blunder of confidence by Hitler, who thought the 6th army alone was enough to take Stalingrad and ordered its accompanying 4th army to separate away from 6th and continue south to join the rest of the previously already split Army Group South (in an even earlier Hitler order that further weakened the later attack on Stalingrad) for an attack on the Caucasus
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  The Blitzkrieg isn't a great counterpoint since the objective is to avoid frontal attacks on heavily defended positions, which is how the Germans did actually manage to get France. Using a blitzkrieg against a hardened position is doomed to failure. The WWII invasion of France was so successful because they struck through the undefended Ardennes, rather than frontally attacking the Maginot line. In that sense the Maginot Line was actually a success, since it prevented a direct invasion of France from Germany, and forced the Germans to attack through other countries.
  - brazzy 3y ago
    Traditionally, you sort of had to take heavily defended positions in order to conquer territory because if you didn't, the defenders would cut of your supply lines and attack your rear. A key idea of Blitzkrieg (or "maneuver warfare" as it's called today) is that if you can move fast enough, this stops being true. You don't rely on fixed supply lines, and they can't attack your rear when they're not sure where you are and could be somewhere else by the time they organize an attack.
halJordan 3y ago
Meanwhile going unacknowledged is Lee's defense of Richmond & Petersburg where he successfully innovated trench warfare 50 years before WW1, where we won't talk about the Battle of the Crater. But hating on Lee is still one of the strongest virtue signals we have. So you'll continue going on about Pickett's charge, Lee 'hagiography' and the Lost Cause mythos.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  I suspect you’re projecting a lot of your personal beliefs on whatever you think I’m saying - I’m pointing out that a major casualty event in an extremely pivotal moment in a major US war was decided by a defending force in a city assault, which is what the parent article and quote is commenting about . I’d love to hear where in the parent comment you think is “hating” on Lee, unless you take the position that pointing out facts is “hate.” surely one can point out historical facts without writing an essay on military tactics on every other battle that happened during the civil war - surely you could agree? I am well versed on this subject and would love a debate. curious you don’t mention fredericksburg because that would actually support whatever point you think you’re making.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    Why would we be interested in debate? This isn't high school, this isn't debate class.
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      Why would I care what you (we? who is we?) think about this discussion? I am hoping the gp comment you’re replying to expands on what they are trying to contribute to this discussion. Also, on that note, what are you bringing?
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
        You did not answer the question.

runamuck 3y ago

Good point. For a counter point, the German Blitzkrieg helped them get France in WW2.

georgeecollins 3y ago
Even more modern example: The little green men who seized Ukraine.
- llamaimperative 3y ago
  Eh, seized a small sliver and failed with extremely high casualties to seize a much larger chunk. The botched invasion was nothing like the German Blitzkrieg.
asdasdsddd 3y ago
Only worked because armor was so dominant and anti armor wasn't there yet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sushibowl 3y ago
  This is in my opinion an oversimplification. Generally, the success of blitzkrieg had more to do with speed and coordination than the strength of armour. A combination of mechanised infantry, tanks, and close air support were instrumental to the tactics. German tanks were the only ones universally equipped with radio units at the start of the war.
  - llamaimperative 3y ago
    And, counterintuitively, lack of coordination. Blitzkrieg units were uniquely autonomous and trusted to meet higher level objectives how they saw fit rather than following a recipe book written weeks before and miles away from the action.
    - fyt2024 3y ago
      the ghost division :-)
    - asdasdsddd 3y ago
      The point is that tanks at the time were faster(along with mechanized infantry) and virtually unstoppable past enemy lines. This is pretty much unprecedented which allowed them to basically take strategic objectives uncontested. This would not happen today because the exposed tanks would be taken out by relatively cheap anti tank missiles.
      - llamaimperative 3y ago
        There were several innovations bundled into Blitzkrieg so I don't think it's productive to clarify what the point is. Virtually unstoppable armor helped, extreme local coordination helped, and extreme general decoupling helped. All of these factors are relevant to Blitzkrieg's success.
      - livueta 3y ago
        Afaik, while better anti-tank weapons did come about during the war, a lot of it was also to do with adapting tactics and usage of existing weapons to counter the new "meta". For example, the flak 88 and the 90mm M1 were originally intended for use as antiaircraft weapons and were widely deployed as early as 1936-38. They just so happened to also be excellent antitank weapons, once people figured out how to deploy them as such.
- sabarn01 3y ago
  The british and French assumed the germans were going to swing though belgium again as they had done in WW1. Also they spread their tanks out as infantry support the germans had concentrated tank units.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  No. There was relatively little actual fighting during the BLitzkrieg. It was about speed and the cutting of communications (in the military sense of roads and bridges rather than radio and telephone). France also had staggeringly poor command structures and they were so invested in the Maginot Line scenario that they simply didn't take the invasion seriously at first. Surprisingly, one of the best histories of Blitzkrieg I've read was a pop-history book (just called 'Blitzkrieg') by Len Deighton, better known for his spy novels. What it lacks in detail, biographical material and so on is made up for by its broad scope, going from industrial production and methods during the interwar rearmament period through to the logistics of the BEF evacuation at Dunkirk.
- vondur 3y ago
  I think French tank commanders lacked radio to coordinate their movements.
zeteo 3y ago
Just because the defense is stronger doesn't guarantee it will always win. Take two sports teams with different levels of skill, for example. In a single game, the team considered weaker can pull off a surprise win. However, over a span of several games, the stronger team will usually pull ahead. In war, various factors, like the element of surprise, can allow the offense to temporarily overcome an inherently stronger defense. In 1940, the Germans quickly overran the French by catching them off guard tactically and strategically. The French couldn't adapt their defense quickly enough and suffered too many crucial losses early on. Next year, the Soviets fared even worse than the French initially; but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks. The French themselves had a similar experience in WW1: after initially surviving for two hard years, they gave the German attackers a very bloody nose at Verdun.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  >but due to geography they managed to survive two crucial years and, at Kursk in 1943, they showed how a well designed defense could stop cold even the best German tanks. At Kursk as your first example? I agree that the battle of Kursk showed the Germans how their best tanks could be crushed, but it's not a good example of your point as I understand it. Firstly because the main reason for victory wasn't so much the ability to destroy German tanks. The Soviets already had this well before July of 1943. Instead victory was because they knew German attack planning in advance and were able to prepare an incredibly robust defense in depth against them while also concealing a superbly equipped counterattack. Secondly, Kursk isn't the best example because the Battle of Stalingrad much earlier showed how it was possible to stop and then destroy a powerful, well equipped German Army with a tenacious defense and then even mount a ferocious counter offensive (operation Uranus). Part of the success of Stalingrad for the Soviets was also due to a major earlier blunder of confidence by Hitler, who thought the 6th army alone was enough to take Stalingrad and ordered its accompanying 4th army to separate away from 6th and continue south to join the rest of the previously already split Army Group South (in an even earlier Hitler order that further weakened the later attack on Stalingrad) for an attack on the Caucasus
dghlsakjg 3y ago
The Blitzkrieg isn't a great counterpoint since the objective is to avoid frontal attacks on heavily defended positions, which is how the Germans did actually manage to get France. Using a blitzkrieg against a hardened position is doomed to failure. The WWII invasion of France was so successful because they struck through the undefended Ardennes, rather than frontally attacking the Maginot line. In that sense the Maginot Line was actually a success, since it prevented a direct invasion of France from Germany, and forced the Germans to attack through other countries.
- brazzy 3y ago
  Traditionally, you sort of had to take heavily defended positions in order to conquer territory because if you didn't, the defenders would cut of your supply lines and attack your rear. A key idea of Blitzkrieg (or "maneuver warfare" as it's called today) is that if you can move fast enough, this stops being true. You don't rely on fixed supply lines, and they can't attack your rear when they're not sure where you are and could be somewhere else by the time they organize an attack.

halJordan 3y ago

Meanwhile going unacknowledged is Lee's defense of Richmond & Petersburg where he successfully innovated trench warfare 50 years before WW1, where we won't talk about the Battle of the Crater. But hating on Lee is still one of the strongest virtue signals we have. So you'll continue going on about Pickett's charge, Lee 'hagiography' and the Lost Cause mythos.

JohnMakin 3y ago
I suspect you’re projecting a lot of your personal beliefs on whatever you think I’m saying - I’m pointing out that a major casualty event in an extremely pivotal moment in a major US war was decided by a defending force in a city assault, which is what the parent article and quote is commenting about . I’d love to hear where in the parent comment you think is “hating” on Lee, unless you take the position that pointing out facts is “hate.” surely one can point out historical facts without writing an essay on military tactics on every other battle that happened during the civil war - surely you could agree? I am well versed on this subject and would love a debate. curious you don’t mention fredericksburg because that would actually support whatever point you think you’re making.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  Why would we be interested in debate? This isn't high school, this isn't debate class.
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    Why would I care what you (we? who is we?) think about this discussion? I am hoping the gp comment you’re replying to expands on what they are trying to contribute to this discussion. Also, on that note, what are you bringing?
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
      You did not answer the question.