So guys one question who invented blitzkrieg?

No one person invented "blitzkrieg", hell, the way the term was first used isn't even the way it's usually discussed by military theorists today. Changes in doctrine are collective efforts of a large number of officers. But if you want a single name about who reformed the interwar German army to make it capable of whatever it did that you're calling Blitzkrieg, I'd go with Guderian.

Blitzkrieg is tactical and minor operational where as Deep battle is all three areas of operation. They key difference is that the reserve units pumped through the point of penetration then act independently of command so is strategic as it is means by which reserve units are maneuvered to attack in any manner of fashion behind enemy lines not explicitly stated in deep battle on a tactical level. In blitzkrieg the tanks (which they emphasis unlike in deep battle where they don't) don't then double back and strike the enemy from the rear but simply encircle them and then wait for infantry to attack whilst securing objectives.
>the end result if successful is the same, pocketing and annihilation of the enemy force, which is very much an operational level thing, not a strategic level thing.
Wrong the end result of blitzkrieg is encirclement, which then leads to a different tactic of destruction of encircled forces. A secondary tactic is needed to complement Blitzkrieg to achieve a desired end strategic result.
The end result of deep battle is complete destruction of an army on a strategic scale as all means of support, reinforcement, and logistics have been cut off and autonomous units act behind the front in an unspecified manner depending on the situation. Deep battle if done correctly will lead to capitulation as is far grander in scale.
>In neither case are they fully strategic.
Blitzkrieg is tactical with minor operational aspects
Deep battle is strategic and operational with minor tactical aspects.
The two are compete opposites in approach with very similar results but not the same, deep battle is top down, blitzkrieg is bottom up.

...

>Blitzkrieg is tactical and minor operational where as Deep battle is all three areas of operation.
No, not really. In both cases they're a rather simple Penetrate->Exploit->Annihilate enemy formation->That's probably enough to win.

> They key difference is that the reserve units pumped through the point of penetration then act independently of command so is strategic as it is means by which reserve units are maneuvered to attack in any manner of fashion behind enemy lines not explicitly stated in deep battle on a tactical level.
I would argue that the key difference is that Blitzkrieg envisions a single Schwerpunkt(sp?) and point of penetration whereas Deep Battle usually aims for multiple points of penetration, with correspondingly very different deployments of friendly assets to achieve these aims. And what the hell? Reserve units that are penetrating are not supposed to be acting independently of command, and even if they were, that doesn't make it a strategic action.

>In blitzkrieg the tanks (which they emphasis unlike in deep battle where they don't) don't then double back and strike the enemy from the rear but simply encircle them and then wait for infantry to attack whilst securing objectives.
That is wrong. They don't just sit around and wait, they'll be attacking rear echelon assets, command posts, ammo dumps, railheads, etc. All those things that the stuck out forces in front need to work right.

>Wrong the end result of blitzkrieg is encirclement, which then leads to a different tactic of destruction of encircled forces.
That's again an operation. And it's pretty well assumed that once the enemy is encircled, they'll be annihilated; it's essentially the final phase of the blitzkrieg, just done with your infantry and artillery.
1/2

>Deep battle if done correctly will lead to capitulation as is far grander in scale.
That's retarded. If you work with a definition like that, operations like Bagration and Jassny-Kishniev weren't "Deep battle done correctly" since they "only" led to enormous destruction of Wehrmacht assets, not capitulation.

>Blitzkrieg is tactical with minor operational aspects
>Deep battle is strategic and operational with minor tactical aspects.
I have no idea what definitions you're using to come up with those statements, but they're certainly not the ones that I see in U.S. military science publications. Strategic level actions are directly concerned with how you achieve your ultimate war aims and what costs are worth paying to achieve them. A strategic level calculation is going to look something like this:
>We want [tinpot dictator] out of power
>How can we do that?
>Let's invade his country and annihilate his army, without a basis of support within the military, he won't be able to hold power even if we do nothing further.
HOW you annihilate that army is operational level, you're looking at whatever theater this war is in, and trying to match your assets to your goals. We want to annihilate this guy's army? Let's try surrounding his forces and pummeling them with artillery until they're all dead How should we maneuver our own forces to do that? In no writing about Deep Battle I'm familiar with does it go into political/goal considerations like that, it just assumes that if the enemy forces are sufficiently weakened, you'll get what you want. That makes it operational, not strategic.

Tactical, on the other hand, is concerned with how the operational goals are to be achieved. We want to annihilate mr dictator's army? We're going to try to encircle and annihlate them? Well how are we going to do that? How are we going to make sure they're bottled up and stuck in one place so we can surround them? Whatever answers you come up with will be tactical level.

Adolf Hitler did after the polish campaign and at that time Erich Von Manstein was working on a ardenne forest attack plan which Hitler saw and and modified to incorporate Blitzkrieg.

Hitler came up with the concept, Guderian made it a practical reality and wrote the book, and Manstein came up with the order of battle and plans that were followed to achieve it.

How is deep battle any different than Brusilov style offesnive? Seems the same to me but I never see the connectino anywhere in the literature.

He liked to poop himself!!!

Blitzkrieg is a result of the maturation of mechanized infantry theory.

JFC fuller is probably the starting point, but it wasn't really any one thinker. It was, first, the recognition of automobiles, treaded-weapon systems, and later airplanes as evolutionary technology in warfare. Believe it or not, you still had officers exiting WWI that thought the conflict was an aberration and other wars would return to "normal." Second, its the evolution of economies capable of supporting the mechanization of warfare.

The Army of the Future - Charles De Gaul
Achtung Panzer - Heinz Guderian
The Remaking of Modern Armies - Basil Liddel-Hart

Technically, Britain was the first. During a war-game exercise where Liddle-Hart's ideas were put into practice, he defeated a traditionally led opposing force. Due in part to old-guard slowness to accept new ideas, war-weariness and the expense of tanks, the theory wasn't put into practice until Germany had done so.

>Following the Second World War Liddell Hart pointed out that the German Wehrmacht adopted theories developed from those of J.F.C. Fuller and from his own, and that it used them against the United Kingdom and its allies (1939–1945) with the practice of what became known as Blitzkrieg warfare.[21] Some scholars, such as the political scientist John Mearsheimer, have questioned the extent of the influence which the British officers, and in particular Liddell Hart, had in the development of the method of war practiced by the Panzerwaffe in 1939–1941. During the post-war debriefs of the former Wehrmacht generals, Liddell Hart attempted to tease out his influence on their war practices. Following these interviews, many of the generals claimed that Liddell Hart had been an influence on their strategies, something that had not been claimed previously nor has any contemporary, pre-war, documentation been found to support their claims....

helo there friend

...Liddell Hart thus put "words in the mouths' of German Generals" with the aim, according to Mearsheimer, to "resurrect a lost reputation".[22]

Also
>After the German failure in the Soviet Union in 1941, use of the term began to be frowned upon in the Third Reich, and Hitler then denied ever using the term, saying in a speech in November 1941, "I have never used the word Blitzkrieg, because it is a very silly word".[23] In early January 1942, Hitler dismissed it as "Italian phraseology".[24][25]

Cain.

Where did my poop thread go?

>deep battle
Never heard of it. Tell me more?

Why does no one care?

Aleksei Brusilov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive

Hard to explain it's a bit like blitzkrieg, operation bagration is a good example of it in action offensively. It's defensive variant was defence in depth which was used at Kursk to great effect.

>complex strategy
It was literally just overwhelming your enemy all at once.