artillery in Blitzkrieg tactics

[drgslyr]

First off, I'm fairly new to this site, but I have to say that it is one of the best forums I have come across. The posters here are generally knowledgeable, polite and actually discuss the topics the forum is meant to address, which makes it a great place to discuss alternative viewpoints and find answers. Which leads me to a question concerning artillery. Artillery's significance is given second-class consideration in the histories of most battles, where the exploits of sexier equipment like tanks, planes, etc. predominate, so it is hard to measure artillery's relevance in Blitzkrieg tactics. To what degree was it possible/desirable to use artillery on a mobile battlefield where surprise was crucial and quick penetration of the enemy line was expected, or was artillery only brought up afterwards to secure ground or penetrate enemy strongpoints?

[lancesergeant]

Valid comment. In Blitzkrieg the objective is rapid advance and literally over run the opponent. Where it comes unstuck is that in some cases the pace of advance outpaced supply. Artillery(long range) by it's nature would be used to soften up defences at distance. In the case of blitzkrieg if you did this I suppose you would negate the element of surprise. Initial aerial bombing as a softener followed by the iron fist of armour and the infantry to mop up what was left or where the other two negated - built up areas concealed anti tank emplacements etc. But in saying that later in the war though not blitzkrieg - the Germans were using stugs which were official classed I believe as self propelled artillery!! in support of troops in counter attacks on weak defended positions.

If you were using artillery in blitzkrieg it would be in the self propelled variety in support of infantry/tanks. In effect it is horses for courses. The doctrine of blitzkrieg wasn't designed with artillery in mind. When Fuller originally thought up the idea with Liddell Hart, artillery would have been towed by horses or tractors and not as mobile or nimble as the new fangled tanks perhaps this might be one reason for them not being a major player. Not being genned up on the ins and outs, I would hazard a guess and say that they would act like the Stugs(defined funny as self propelled artillery) in infantry support or in a tank type role - or both. Other option though I don't know if the sp artillery had the elevation would be to fire at the rear of the enemy defence breaking up the communications, command and logistics suppport/ network causing chaos and confusion.

There are a couple of former gunners on the forum, there is a good chance they would give a good and far better account of the contribution that would be made by artillery in blitzkrieg or similar, than myself.

As far as artillery significance taking second place, Stalin said it was the god of war. Look at the "softening up" of Berlin and the lines of guns literally side by side in a continuous barrage. Tanks you can see, planes you can see, infantry like wise. But the artillery barrage there would be no hiding place. Psychological effect is obvious.

[Glider]

I believe that the place for artillery is in the support of the gains made in the attack itself. The requirement for artillery was recognised but the problem was how to supply it.
Towed artillery will not keep up with the advance hence the development of SPG.
If I recall correctly even in WW1 there were some experiments of Tanks being modified to carry a normal 18pd gun but the technology wasn't ready for it.