In Blitzkrieg, Panzers spearheaded the attack, then infantry followed to fill the gaps

they're supposed to find a specific point in a defensive line,punch through it,advance rapidly and either bypassing or ignoring enemy strongpoints,disrupt enemy defense and then find a focal point to strike
infantry is necessary to fight remnants of the swept up enemy forces
how is this a fucking meme?

Because tanks were not supposed to punch through a defensive line. They were supposed to go through a gap already punched by infantry. That's how Germany and other countries used panzers, except for glaring oddities like the Soviet use of tanks during Barbarossa which led to predictably disastrous results.

Blitzkrieg is made up term by third-rate historians and journalists.

Are you saying it's bad to have a commonly-recognised term to describe typical German operations?

No, while "blitzkrieg" was never a formal doctrine, if you look at things like Fall Gelb, or the opening successes of Barbarossa, the general German plan was

>Make hole in enemy line with infantry and artillery.
>Run through hole with armor and motorized/mechanized infantry, using air power to support them especially since they won't be taking much artillery
>These fast units chew up rear echelon stuff of the enemy, their supply lines, command posts, artillery emplacements, etc.
>The front lines are now in a bad way.
>Infantry mops up.

In a lot of ways, yes. Including, it seems, the misconceptions around their use.

I think it would be accurate to say that Germany used an armoured spearhead supported by infantry/artillery/etc.

I certainly don't think every country used armour in this way.

just because something is made up doesn't mean its bad, just has to be recognized as being made up

>typical German operations
Already a jargon for it. Prussian maneuver warfare or something. Forgot the name. Actually used in the WW2 military handbook. Blitzkrieg is not just like that. It tends to be misleading, seems to lead people into thinking it's a revolutionary doctrine masterminded and completely different from pre-WW2 German doctrine, made by the famous panzer general Heinz Guderian, etc etc

>I think it would be accurate to say that Germany used an armoured spearhead supported by infantry/artillery/etc.
No, it would be inaccurate. Germany used infantry to breakthrough.

Aren't all words made up? I don't quite follow. They might not have used that specific term at the time but that hardly matters when describing something.

Whatever the history channel whatever have done with the term is a whole other matter. Surely it would be more accurate to call it an evolution of Prussian maneuver warfare?

Bugwunderkrieg.

And, to be fair, the mechanization of exploitation elements drastically changed the game when it came to ability to actually effectively use a break in the line.

>Whatever the history channel whatever have done with the term is a whole other matter.
It matters when it first came up as a media sensationalism, like Rommel being pitted as "Worthy Enemy" or shit like that. Almost like an Allied propaganda. It's bad methodology to use dubious term.

Also, not to mention saying something as a deliberate 'doctrine' yet such idea was generated post-factum.

What makes blitzkried so unique and such a term was that it was the first concentrated, orgainized use of effective armored and mechanized forces in cohesion, seeing how they were barely half a century old it was rather impressive. You have to remember we went from using tanks as trench breakers to a full combined arms warfare approach after the onset, blitzkrieg was the first real execution of that idea we'd seen since it had been introduced onto the war table so to speak

David Glantz, Karl-Heinz Frieser and Lloyd Clark state that it was a spearhead of armour and motor/mech infantry.

What sources of yours say that it was an infantry breakthrough?

Also air power is a huge factor. The opening stages of both Barbarossa and the Western front (before the Battle of Britain) the Germans definitely had an edge in delivering that advantage

no
it was supposed to be either bombarded by artillery or softened by air support
very rarely do we see infantry preceding any armored assault and like it said if tanks are trying to penetrate a strong point they'll find a specific spot for it for maximum depth and effect (Sedan in France,upper Ukraine in Kyiv etc)

The Blitzkrieg meme lasted only for two years though. The Germans spent the last four years retreating slowly.

Three years + sporadic occasions

Saying they spent 1941 of all years retreating is rather silly.

the ideals of blitzkrieg survived on though
tactics in the invasion of Iraq borrow heavily from Blitzkrieg doctrine,the coalition basically bypassed all Iraqi forces except Fellujah,Karbala,Mosul and Baghdad

They do not say that.

Infantry always preceded armored assault.

1st Panzer Division's assault on Martelange commenced with a pure infantry assault on pillboxes.

After Martelange, the 1st Pz. moved on to Bodange, where their infantry elements were stopped by Belgian infantry elements. Panzers did not spearhead this attack; it would have been ineffective to suicidal.

Afterwards, the 1st Pz moved on to Neufchateau. The panzers were used first as stationery artillery, then as recon. It was only after the panzers found undefended gaps that the panzers infiltrated. The Belgians beat a hasty retreat once their rear was compromised, and the 1st Pz took Neufchateau without an assault.

At Bouillon, the 1st Pz launched probing attacks across the Meuse without infantry breakthrough. Frieser describes this as the 1st Pz accepting a tactical mistake in exchange for rapid advance.

Afterwards, the 1st Pz took Mouzaive. This attack was spearheaded by a rifle company.

I'm not on either side of this debate, but can you actually provide a proper source and link to back up the claim? I'm a history student and have been taught that it was armor used enmass along with infantry support that made the breakthroughs as opposed to the French method of disturbing the tanks as evenly as possible among its divisions. As a result, where the French might have 10 tanks to a section 5km long the Germans are likely to have 2-3 times the numbers to face them.

However ive found multiple times my lecturers have cited sources incorrectly, so if you have one im highly interested.

The famous breakthrough at Sedan was spearheaded by infantry. It was the Grossdeutschland, not the 1st Pz., that made the breakthrough.

Frieser is what I'm screencapping for now.

Reinhardt's panzer corps took Montherme. As expected, it was infantry elements with engineer support that subdued the pillboxes to clear the way for the panzers.

Hoth's attack on Dinant was spearheaded by the infantry elements. Rommel's 7th Panzer broke through with 2 infantry regiments, as did the 5th Panzer.

This seems to be citing specifically the Battle of Sedan as opposed to the overall german operations in France, and even then states that blitzkrieg wasn't achieved using tanks due to the operational constraints at Sedan.

Do you have anything broader?

It should be noted that there was a situation in which it made sense to lead with the panzers: when one could achieve surprise through speed. Rommel was a particularly brilliant practitioner of this tactics.

>that blitzkrieg wasn't achieved using tanks due to the operational constraints at Sedan.
The same operational constraints will exist at any defended position. Tanks are sitting ducks against fortified positions and hidden AT guns. They have to be subdued by infantry first, whether from the panzer division's own elements or from outside divisions.

In the early war all tanks besides the b1 and the maltida were maneuver units designed to exploit tactical breakthroughs by infantry and turn them into strategic breakthroughs

However later in the war tanks became far more common in infantry formations, not consigned merely to specialised manuver formations, especially in allied and soviet divisions.

Heavy tanks were always the spearhead vehicles, but were not particularly common in any army besides the french. Medium and light tanks were for mobility not being able to take fire

Americans used infantry to breakthrough. The Tiger was envisioned as a breakthrough tank but Germany was never in a position to attempt offensive maneuvers in late war.

AT guns however can be defeated if calibre is calculated against armor thickness, range and the capability of the tank to engage guns at said range. Its not something that can be used all the time, but certainly was used.

Fortified positions are exactly why tanks were originally designed and even at this stage of the war in 1940, the majority of countries saw them as a weapon system designed for engaging fortified positions and to protect advancing infantry.

Again, still not saying the opinion being given is wrong, i'm just after citations of overall blitzkrieg doctrine which got used in several places, not just the situational results of the meuss river at the Battle of Sedan.

>Fortified positions are exactly why tanks were originally designed and even at this stage of the war in 1940, the majority of countries saw them as a weapon system designed for engaging fortified positions and to protect advancing infantry.
You are completely mistaken. Tanks were protected by infantry, not the other way around.

they did use Tigers as breakthrough tanks in Kursk, with disastrious results

Assault on the Dyle line initially failed due to lack of infantry support. Hoepner made the correct decision to employ 2 infantry divisions the next morning to breakthrough.
However, this became moot due to the 3rd Pz's infantry regiment achieving a breakthrough that evening.

This was mostly developed during the war itself as tanks became much more vulnerable to infantry.

The British and the French in the early period often used tanks in the same style as they had during the previous war, which isn't as outdated as the statement makes it sound since 1917-1918 was a surprisingly mobile period of the great war, but it was with tanks leading to support infantry so the infantry could get close enough to assault.

>not just the situational results of the meuss river at the Battle of Sedan.
I described, from Frieser, how all the major panzer breakthroughs in BoF were achieved--by Guderian, by Hoth, by Reinhardt, and by Hoepner--all with infantry breaking through and preparing the way for the panzers.

I tend to believe that the invulnerability of allied tanks hurt them more than it helped them. Germans had to develop tank tactics to take advantage of the element of speed. Brits and French often threw tanks into the thick of things and fired at shit until the tanks were eventually knocked out. Good for k/d but not good for winning battles.

British tanks attacked without infantry support. They were predictably massacred after getting some kills.

Maybe i misread, isn't that just a source on the Battle of Sedan?

An extremely important battle, it cut off the BEF and pretty much decided the Battle for France, but i didn't see it referencing others. In addition as i mentioned, the Armored was slowed down by the fact they weren't able to either ferry it fast enough/get large enough ferries in order to execute the advance?

I'm not implying that infantry were of no use or weren't used with armor, such as in Hoepner's account where armor failed without any supporting infantry. Just that the reason Blitzkrieg worked to such a fantastic degree was combined arms tactics of infantry directly supporting armor within the same operation.

Infantry directly support armor by going ahead and destroying enemy fortifications, i.e. by achieving a breakthrough.
And just what makes you think Sedan is also Dinant and Montherme? Curious to hear your reasoning.

Source is Frieser, The Blitzkrieg Myth. It discusses the entire BoF at the tactical level.