Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I've just got round to reading this. 220 pages in paperback, and the first 3/5 or so deal with the development and deployment of Tanks in the Great War. It was published in 1937.
Much of the story of the development is familiar stuff, but he spends a lot of time describing and analysing Tank operations. Very detailed accounts of Tank actions from the German point of view, both on the battlefield and in the High Command, assessment of Allied tactics and mistakes, all very interesting. And, of course, it shows you what he learned and put into practice in WWII.
Also, as part of the story of how mounted cavalry learned the hard way that they had had their day, the most detailed account I've read so far about the invasion of Belgium and the battles at Tirlemont, Haalen, etc.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
is there such thing as coincidence? Just after reading your post on Haigs' diaries I saw the book in a second hand bookshop, and not exactly one that's specialised in this kind of literature. It has the volume of a bible, couldn't make up my mind to buy it... Achtung! Panzer: almost the same story, as I heard a lot of it but never read it. 'Schneller Heinz' book must have been some kind of a best-seller in military circles I guess. Not only noticed by other visionairs like Liddell Hart, Hobart and the like but it even went around amongst chiefs of staff in many countries. The general belief that everyone was surprised by the Blitz tactics: I think many already knew what could happen, but hardly no one had a proper answer, partly due to ignorance, self confidence or simply not given the right material, as the economical and political background was poor.
Another one I still have to read: Vers l'armee de metier by Charles de Gaulle, written a few years before Guderians book...
It's arguable that the idea of a "panzer fist" was quite consistent with the German Army's philosophy. There is a video of a lecture at Carlisle's website - http://www.carlisle.army.mil/AHEC/mediagallery/videoGallery.cfm?id=32 which expands on this theme.
Guderian makes the point on his writing on the French campaign in 1940 that the Allies tried to manouver to start positional warfare - in effect a rerun of 1914. By the time they realised that the German Army was using a different manual the campaign was over.
yes, that's arguable. Certainly not everyone in the Reichswehr was convinced of the idea of mechanized warfare. 1914 style positional warfare thinking never left the minds of the German chiefs of staff too, the panic after the battle of Arras, bringing them to the famous stop before Dunkirk, suddenly all ww1 thinking came back. But that's all ww2...
