i think we forget to easy that the german army wasent exactly set up for blitzkreig anyway
most of its stuff was horse draw en anyway
For 'Barbarossa' the Germans had 750,000 horses compared to 600,000 motor vehicles and 3500 armoured fighting vehicles. Its estimated that they lost an average of 1000 horses a day on the Eastern Front.
Even late war the army was reliant on horses, some 300,000+ were used in the Normandy campaign with the bulk being required by the artillery.
In total the Germans are estimated to have used 2.7 million horses in WW2, almost exactly double the 1.4 million they used in WW1!
Even at its peak, armoured and motorised units never amounted to more than 20% of the Heer.
Of course you could say that if your forces are built for quick and reactive fighting to exploit an enemies weakness and reduce the opportunity for a stalemate, then when an army has to change that position it will be somewhat dis-ordered
Very true and this certainly happens. The German army finds it difficult to cope with reverses during their campaigns. Arras in 1940 for example, the fact that they do cope is down to individual initiative among their commanders and this is shown time and time again throughout the war when they are lucky to have competent and capable officers at the scene of major crisis and they are able to cope with them.
Their army is not set up for 'Total War' as is required in the East. The whole German war machine goes under a period of redevelopment in 1942 to allow it to cope with the increasing demands of a drawn out, total conflict compared to the short, sharp wars for which it was designed.