Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Of the other commanders you mentioned, I would personally discount Kleist (the others are good choices though). It took him a long time to fully realize the possibilities of armour and his performances in France and initially in Russia were not outstanding. Coming back to Guderian bear in mind that he also:

a) was instrumental in creating the panzerwaffe and the tactics used by the German Army in WW2
b) had a major role in the 'Manstein Plan' and also was at the heart of the German successes in France
c) along with Speer made a major difference in AFV development and production 1943 onwards
d) had a hand in major strategy on the Ostfront although severely hampered by Hitler in this regard

So yes Guderian is famous but he does deserve that fame. Commanders like Balck, Hoth, Manteuffel, Hausser, Rommel and Manstein would have been different men without Guderian's influence.

There is never only 'one' man who advocates anything. There are a slew of others who are left in the background for one reason or another. The tactics used by the Wehrmacht in WWII were lacking, their initial victories owed more to numerical advantages and luck than anything else. As for his role in the French campaign, point out one panzer division commander who didn't do a good job? France's defeat was simply brought to a close faster due to their, Rommel's and Guderian's, reckless flights into the French rear without any regard for their flanks. Most commanders were hampered by Hitler and he wasn't the only one who had ideas about what to do on the Eastern Front, the focus is simply drawn to him for a variety of reasons and misses out on many others.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

There is never only 'one' man who advocates anything. There are a slew of others who are left in the background for one reason or another.

Like who for example? Who are these slew of people in the background that got no recognition for developing the panzerwaffe?

Originally Posted by Kunikov

The tactics used by the Wehrmacht in WWII were lacking, their initial victories owed more to numerical advantages and luck than anything else.

In what way were they lacking? The tactics the Wehrmacht used were mainly why they were so successful in the first 3 years of WW2. What numerical advantages did the Wehrmacht have against the BEF and French Armies in 1940 for example?

Luck, I'm not a great believer in 'luck'. In war, as in most things, you make your own luck.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

As for his role in the French campaign, point out one panzer division commander who didn't do a good job? France's defeat was simply brought to a close faster due to their, Rommel's and Guderian's, reckless flights into the French rear without any regard for their flanks.

"Simply brought to a close faster", is what you said. You hit the nail on the head, though I suspect you didn't mean to. Don't think you think that Guderian and Rommel running riot in the rearguard of the French is the reason why they were so successful? If the German flanks were so vulnerable (and they were), why is it that the French never exploited this opportunity? Tip: it wasn't through lack of will.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Like who for example? Who are these slew of people in the background that got no recognition for developing the panzerwaffe?

http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Blitzkri...1813011&sr=8-1

Of course this doesn't take into account what the Germans saw in other countries, i.e. France, England, and the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

In what way were they lacking? The tactics the Wehrmacht used were mainly why they were so successful in the first 3 years of WW2. What numerical advantages did the Wehrmacht have against the BEF and French Armies in 1940 for example?

Why is it that you can only present one case where the Wehrmacht was outnumbered? How many countries did Germany invade and conquer? Why use only one example when they weren't numerically superior and ignore all others? The French Campaign, as I have pointed out, owed more to French ineptitude than to anything the Germans did 'right.' France wasn't even conquered, they surrendered.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Luck, I'm not a great believer in 'luck'. In war, as in most things, you make your own luck.

German ability to make their own luck ran out in 1941 then.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

"Simply brought to a close faster", is what you said. You hit the nail on the head, though I suspect you didn't mean to. Don't think you think that Guderian and Rommel running riot in the rearguard of the French is the reason why they were so successful? If the German flanks were so vulnerable (and they were), why is it that the French never exploited this opportunity? Tip: it wasn't through lack of will.

I'm not here to take a test, I can easily look up the answer in "Blitzkrieg Legend" but I have better things to do with my time.

I agree with Kunikov on the point about The French being inept about how to fight a war.They built the Maginot Line which was a well built foritification system but one which relied on the Germans to attack the positions were it was built head on and the French goverenment didn't expect a German attack to come through the Ardennes forest.