I have to disagree about
1)De Gaulle :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ...De Gaulle
2)Liddell Hart :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ..Liddel Hart
3)Guderian :a lot of Panzer Leader is on the level of the claims by Sam :worthless .

Originally Posted by lljadw

I have to disagree about
1)De Gaulle :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ...De Gaulle
2)Liddell Hart :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ..Liddel Hart
3)Guderian :a lot of Panzer Leader is on the level of the claims by Sam :worthless .

Myths?
Their principles and writings that are universally recognized and used today in several military academies. On what do you base these myths.

Charles de Gaulle was one of the pioneers of modern armored warfare. His writings, Vers l'armée de métier from 1934 defended the idea of a small professional army, highly mechanized and mobile, in preference to the static theories exemplified by the Maginot Line, although initially ignored, it eventually led to his assuming command of the newly-created French 4th Mechanized Division in May, 1940.

De Gaulle's concept called for forming a mechanized corps of six divisions plus a light division consisting of armored and motorized elements. The division was to include an armored brigade composed of a heavy tank regiment, a medium tank regiment, and a battalion of light tanks. The second brigade was to include two infantry regiments and a battalion of chasseurs, all mounted in tracked vehicles. There was an artillery brigade with two regiments of howitzers and an antiaircraft group. Finally, the division was to include a reconnaissance regiment, an engineer battalion, a signal battalion, and a camouflage battalion. De Gaulle's proposed division was a relatively balanced force of combined arms, intended for the offense based on the strength of its armored vehicles and not the foot soldiers. His light division was to serve as an advance force with faster vehicles. He also proposed an air element to support operations and create a truly combined arms force.

By the time the war began, the Germans had created a force of several armored divisions similar to what de Gaulle had wanted, but Guderian and others did not agree with de Gaulle on concentrating a force of 3,000 tanks for a front of about fifty kilometers.


In the military realm, Liddell Hart’s theories about mechanised warfare, mobility, surprise attack and air warfare developed during the 1920s and 1930s were put into practice in World War II initially, and with great effectiveness, by the Germans with the blitzkrieg offensives. His enemies acknowledged their debt. General Heinz Guderian during the war said "I was one of Captain Liddell Hart’s disciples in tank affairs." And Field Marshal Erwin Rommel opined that "The British would have been able to prevent the greatest part of their defeats if they had paid attention to the modern theories expounded by Liddell Hart before the war."

Originally Posted by lljadw

I have to disagree about
1)De Gaulle :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ...De Gaulle
2)Liddell Hart :his influence on tank war is a post war myth,invented by ..Liddel Hart
3)Guderian :a lot of Panzer Leader is on the level of the claims by Sam :worthless .

Then who created the strategy of the Blitzkrieg in your opinion? I agree that not one person created the theory, but several people in several nations helped formulate the strategy. However, Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, De Gaulle, J. F. C. Fuller, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and several others all had a part in developing the theory.
To claim that they didn't would be ignoring historical quotes, facts, events, in fact, ignore history itself

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Guderian was a communications officer since WW I, he realized the vital importance of communication, leading from the front, coordination between all forces and disrupting enemy communication centers (all of which he did brilliantly in the USSR).

I believe he was an intelligence officer serving at Verdun

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

In 1939 Japan, Italy, the USSR and Germany were an unbeatable force. Their combined navy, airforce and ground forces were formidable and their strategic location invaluable.

Fortunately for the allies, the leaders of all 4 nations violated every principle of Sun Tsu.
We shall concentrate on Hitler, since he led the strogest nation and should have also led the other 3.

First of all, Hitler wasted the most valuable element of surprise, since even on September 1, 1939, nobody really thought that Hitler would unleash WW II, so soon after the millions of deaths in WW I.

Germany attacked alone and invaded a country which did not present a threat or provide a major advantage to Germany. Therefore attacking Poland alone (Stalin would invade it only after the allies had declared war on Germany) provided few benefits, started the war in a very unfavorable position (with extremely few submarines, risking a counter attack from the west and without capturing any crucial enemy territory and pitting Germany alone against 8 nations all over the world).

Likewise, Mussolini wasted the surprise element, entering the war almost a year after Germany, by invading the already beaten France, exposing itself to bombing by British planes and shelling by British ships, without enough planes or adequate tanks to even conquer Egypt.

Japan entered the war 2 year after Germany did and instead of exploiting the surprise element and wiping out the British fleet and capturing invaluable British territories, etc, Japan forced the US into the war.

Most crucially, not only did Hitler not use the USSR adequately, but he invaded it at the worst possible time, dooming his country.

Sun Tsu states that one should attack the most important and least protected territories using all the allies to defeat the enemies peacemeal. In contrast, Hitler attacked alone, charging always against the thickest enermy forces.

Had Hitler coordinated with Japan, the USSR and Italy, so that instead of Germany invading Poland alone in September 1939, they captured together the extremely poorly defended Malta, Aden, Madagascar, South Africa, Ceylon, Egypt, Iraq, Norway & Persia so that the axis would have plenty of oil and the long range Japanese submarines and 4 engine planes could attack the South Atlantic from South Africa. Invading Norway in conjunction with the USSR would have been quite easy and allowed the Soviet and German submarines excellent bases to operate in the North Atlantic from 1939. Likewise, occupying Persia and Iraq (who were por German) from the USSR and from the Persian gulf would have been quite easy. The combined submarine fleet of Japan, the USSR and Germany in the Atlantic would have paralized British shipping. Dividing the British and French empires among the 4 axis allies would have strengthened their economies and provided them with strategic positions for further conquests.
Once these strategic positions were captured, Hitler should have encouraged Stalin to invade Poland alone (except the Danzig corridor), which would have been quite costly for Stalin and induced the Poles to eventually join the Germans against Stalin.

Even if Hitler intended to invade the USSR eventually, it made a lot of sense to use its huge army to weaken and defeat France and Britain first.

Britain would have been in a precarious position, unable to receive troops and goods from Australia, SA, India, Burma, etc, and without the oil from Persia and its bases in Malta and Alexandria it would have had to abandon the Mediterranean beyond Gibraltar. In short, it would have had to sue for peace.

Dunno much about Sun Tzu, but I found many inaccuracies in the OP's historical claims:
1) To claim that Hitler could have led the USSR, Japan, and Italy is igoring history completely. Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies, and Hitler succeed partially in his career by claiming that communists will overrun the Weimar Republic if the Nazis weren't brought to power. Stalin knew that Hitler hated him and that each country hated each other, with too many ideological and historical differences between the two. Border violations and skirmishes were constant. Stalin himself would have invaded Germany in 1942 if Hitler didn't in 1941.

2) Military strategy in the West was mainly defense-oriented. Stalin and Hitler anticipated, quite correctly that they would only strengthen the Maginot Line. The Allies had weeks to invade Germany, and outnumbered the German forces, even during the Blitzkrieg. They didn't need to attack France and the Low Countries so early. In addition, there's a reason why Hitler wanted to conquer and occupy Poland, like how he wanted Czechoslavakia, Austria, and such. Economic assets, etc...

3) Japan attacked British territories and assets, as well as US territory and assets, such as the Phillipines, Corregidor, etc...

Originally Posted by 42RM

No, it can not be!
We Englishman are too stupid to wage war. We have never invented anything that can be used in war. Our generals were incompetent and our leaders alcoholic. We stood on the sidelines while Uncle Sam Saved our ass.

But they do have a sense of humor in battle: Waterloo, Sunday June 18 1815

With carnage all around, Wellington and Lord Uxbridge observed how the latter's leg had just been blown off: "By God, Sir. I've lost my leg." "By God, Sir. So you have."

Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy

Then who created the strategy of the Blitzkrieg in your opinion? I agree that not one person created the theory, but several people in several nations helped formulate the strategy. However, Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, De Gaulle, J. F. C. Fuller, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and several others all had a part in developing the theory.
To claim that they didn't would be ignoring historical quotes, facts, events, in fact, ignore history itself

If you must point to one, it's the French Canadian officer Raymond Brutinel.

Brutinel saw the machinegun as the weapon of the future and the motor car as potential mobility on the battlefield. Unlike soldiers of that day, he didn’t view machine guns as a weapon supporting infantry in defense, but visualized them in batteries of four or eight, firing day and night to inflict casualties behind enemy lines. Brutinel had motor cars equipped with armor plating, mounted with Colt machine guns (later replaced by Vickers machine guns), able to move wherever necessary to plug gaps in the battle line. To harass the enemy’s rear, or to attack.

When the British questioned the value of Brutinel’s "Bullet artillery" and indirect fire, plus the "rolling barrage" of artillery and machine gun fire 400 yards in front of attacking Allied infantry (advocated by both Brutinel and Gen. Arthur Currie commanding the Canadian Corps), Brutinel responded: "Don’t ask the British – ask the Germans!"

German prisoners verified horrendous casualties and damaged morale inflicted by constant machine gun fire that prevented movement, or heads above the trenches. Largely unknown today, one of Brutinel’s armored cars remains in working order at Camp Borden.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

But they do have a sense of humor in battle: Waterloo, Sunday June 18 1815

With carnage all around, Wellington and Lord Uxbridge observed how the latter's leg had just been blown off: "By God, Sir. I've lost my leg." "By God, Sir. So you have."

Not humor! Just keeping up appearances.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

But they do have a sense of humor in battle: Waterloo, Sunday June 18 1815

With carnage all around, Wellington and Lord Uxbridge observed how the latter's leg had just been blown off: "By God, Sir. I've lost my leg." "By God, Sir. So you have."

It's called British understatement, one doesn't like to make a fuss.

Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy

Then who created the strategy of the Blitzkrieg in your opinion? I agree that not one person created the theory, but several people in several nations helped formulate the strategy. However, Liddell Hart, Heinz Guderian, De Gaulle, J. F. C. Fuller, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and several others all had a part in developing the theory.
To claim that they didn't would be ignoring historical quotes, facts, events, in fact, ignore history itself

You are forgetting :Hitler,without the support of Hitler,the "colonel Blimps" of the German army would have blocked the realization of the Blitzkrieg theory .
Better would be asking :what created the possibility to have the Blitzkrieg,not who ,because the Blitzkrieg theory was not something new ,it existed since a lot of centuries,but,at the end of the 19th century,a Blitzkrieg had become impossible,because the new technology was favourizing the defense ,if a break-through was realized,the attacking cavalry was to vulnerable to exploit the opportunity,one had to wait to the possibility to mechanize and armouring the cavalry,and,that only was possible after wwI.
In a lot of countries,a lot of people were working in the direction of a renewed blitzkrieg,but the exemples given,were a poor choice .Liddell Hart was generally disliked by the army.The only possibility for the British Army to practise the Blitzkrieg,was on the European Continent.Well,LH opposed a continental commitment of the British Army,despite his claims of prophetic understanding of the nature of future hostilities.
Source :And we shall shock them (by David Fraser,pp 17-18)