The virgin blitzkrieg vs the chad deep battle

In football term Blitzkrieg will be pressing with cut inside while Deep Battle is like tiki taka with counter attack.

Ideally they'd supply CCCP with enough to keep the Nazis busy, but not to win.

American might, and later nuclear weapons, would have resulted in victory in any case. The CCCP is the bigger long term threat than Nazi Deutchland. Their empire was never sustainable.

>communism doesn't work
>lasts for 60 years

pretty sure than nazi germany would last longer

>What is the battle of Berlin?

a battle funded by the west

No. They're similar in that they both seek penetrating attacks, but blitzkrieg uses air power
or artillery to tie up the back lines, supporting units to tie up the front line, and then uses specialized breakthrough units (schwerpunkt, or spearhead) to get between the enemy frontline units to secure a local objective behind it. It's tactical rather than strategic. Deep Battle hits as much of the front line as possible and once something starts to give, you flood the gap and keep going. Alternatively, once you hit heavy resistance, you maneuver until you don't. It's generally strategic rather than tactical. On top of this, blitzkrieg has no defensive use outside of counter-attack. Deep Battle includes defensive mechanisms through the defense in depth that's necessary to flood the gap.

You father doesn't work either but lasted for 80 years.

>tfw you have more men than the Germans have bullets

>The CCCP is the bigger long term threat than Nazi Deutchland. Their empire was never sustainable.

What happens after Germania collapses?

Quick reminder
Guderian < Triandafillov < Fuller

Also a shitty MS paint to show the difference. Hope you can understand it.

Maybe I'm a strategylet, but what exactly alleviates deep battle from simple meatgrinder mass assault tactics a la WW1?

I'm not actually as well versed in WWI strategy as I am with Deep Battle. I imagine that the primary difference would be the level of employ. While human wave tactics could be and were used on a tactical level to support deep battle operations, they were simply that: tactical actions to support the operation. On top of this would be the use of mobility and maneuver which you didn't see as much in WWI on the Western Front. Actually, I don't think I've read anything about WWI where units made it past the front line and kept going until they couldn't.

They have certain similarities; although comparisons often run into difficulty since you don't even have a definition of "Blitzkrieg" that is agreed upon 100% by military historians. But to say they're "very" similar isn't something I'd go with myself.

Both systems attempt to use tactical and operational mobility to actually win battles and increase or at least compensate effective firepower. The primary difference is that Blitzkrieg attempts to have a single focal point, the "Schwerpunkt", in which a breakthrough is made and is exploited to have your more mobile elements chew up the rear echelon stuff of the enemy. Deep Battle attempts to achieve breakthroughs by stretching the enemy line, with a lot of lateral maneuvering, forcing the enemy to spread too thinly to defend properly, and breaking through that way.

In actual practice, both systems tended to converge on each other. The Germans used multiple breakthrough points in things like Barbarossa and Blau, and the Soviets gradually decreased the number of breakthrough points from their earlier, very unsuccessful offensives, to the later war ones that actually worked.

WW1 (or at least western front style WW1) late war doctrines assert that you can't use mobility to compensate for firepower. The enemy has a huge long line of defenses facing you, and there is no real rear or flank that is vulnerable. The only way to progress forward is to use overwhelming firepower, break the enemy army into itty bitty pieces, and then advance and mop up.

Deep battle was largely made possible by advances like increased motorization and mechanization, where you could actually move and fight on a battlefield. You don't try to meet the enemy head on, the purpose of the initial assaults is to make a crack somewhere (preferably in several places) and flood inside, and the real goal of the attack is the rear, softer areas.

this is what military rape looks like