The tanks of the era were not reliable at all, slow, and were dangerous to their crews. It was a primitive and new technology; sure we now can complain and bitch in hindsight about the inability of the British commanders to use these "wonder weapons". But do we really expect them to do something intelligent with them if they were never used before? The British commanders did not have these things in 1913 to practice in peacetime so they can tailor the tactics to suit the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of the tank. Also the tank was every expensive and Britain couldn't afford too many. The war itself should have been contained to a Austrian-Serbian conflict. Austria was on her death bed anyways, it was only a matter of time.
I agree with you there everythings 20/20 in hindsight but I think the propaganda of the day stood in the way of their development, earlier if either side had wanted, the technology to create them (More primitive version) was in existance. I expect the commanders should of been able to adapt and use a new situation (technology) to their advantage, being able to do so is the basis for most strategies. "Adapt and overcome" like we used to say in the corps. As far as the politics, I tend to think war between the big powers was inevitable. War is like Sh1t, its unpleasent but it happens. Just for kicks http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/09/25ky/met-4-tank09250-4114.html
I think the propaganda of the day stood in the way of their development How so? They were being depicted to the best of my knowledge as wonder weapons. Explain? I expect the commanders should of been able to adapt and use a new situation (technology) to their advantage, being able to do so is the basis for most strategies. "Adapt and overcome" like we used to say in the corps. But realistically what could they have done different to change the actual outcome of war? I think WWI was more a war of psychology then numbers. Since you were in the "corps" I guess you could shed some light on what tactics (which were feasible in 1917) they could have used to significantly improve the importance of tanks?
War, or more correctly battles, are a matter of fluidity - being able to adapt to given situations and modify any strategy or tactic accordingly. "The Great War" was an event in which fluidity had been forgotten in preference to set plays and manouveres gained through past experience, when both sides neglected to take into account that the other also had that experience. this led to static lines and trench warfare, setting the scene for a stalemate. Given a commander with a flexible mind, this war could have been won by either side long before the USA had sufficient resolution to enter the war at all. As an example, at the battle of Mons in 1914, German general Von Kluck was ordered not to attempt to outflank the BEF due to the possibility of him losing contact with the German 2nd army under Von Bulow. Had he been permitted to do so, the "race to the coast" of 1914-15 might have been avoided and an eventual German strategic advantage was lost. Instead, the BEF was encountered head on. Rather than retreating to the coast, the BEF set up "lines" along the Marne river, linking with French forces. Another mistake. Had they done otherwise, the German forces could not have advanced further into France without the possibility of having to fight the French on one side and the British on another. Has anyone noticed that the plans for the German Blitzkreig of WW1 were almost identical to those of WW2, differing only in the technology used to implement them?
All those Bismarckian alliances made it impossible to confine the war to an Austro-Serbian conflict. The militaries themselves stood in the way of their development. The military branches of a great power are always monolithic institutions and the upper hierarchy of each are always reactionary to innovations in technology. Admirals of all navies fiercely resisted the aircraft carrier, because air power would mean the death of almost 400 years of the ships of the line navies. Ideas about armor prior to WWI were intensely resisted by army brass because it would replace the horse cavalry, which represented hundreds of years of tradition of the cavalry being the lance thrust of the attack. And because no one envisioned trench warfare on the scope that it developed.
http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Tank_history.html Basically use large groups of them at the same time and follow them with anything including mounted calvary. Undecided, After further researching it probably the commanders not propaganda that stood in the way of their development. Not always, The Roman Legions were quite adaptable not to mention Japan in World War Two. At that point in history though it seems like the commanders were anti-technology, anti-innovation.
True, but the legions were almost always at war, and Japan was at war from 1932-1945, and it is always easier for admirals and generals to accept innovative changes during war than in peacetime.
All those Bismarckian alliances made it impossible to confine the war to an Austro-Serbian conflict. I used to agree with this line of argumentations, but the Germans did try to stop the war from starting did they not? It was the other nations which were hell bent on war. So imo if there was actual co-operation WWI could have been prevented.
No, they did not. Following the assassination, Germany issued Austria the 'blank check', not only offering its support, but also encouraging Austria to pressure Serbia. Austria responded by issuing several demands it new the Serbs would not accept. At the same time Russia was encouraging its slavic brothers and assuring them that Russia would back them.
I'm curious as to promotion speed in those two militaries, not to mention what was expected of unit comanders. If younger more adaptable leaders were expieriencing combat firsthand then using those expieriences to make decisions as they climbed rank that would of made them potentionally better commanders. "Hands on" training.
Good questions. I really have no idea about the Japanese, either the army or the navy, but in the legions I know promotion was a mixed bag. There was a chance of promotion through the ranks based on merit up until a point. Centurions general led the cohorts, and were second in command of the cohorts, and you could move your way up through the ranks from the 10th Cohort all the way to the 1st Cohort, which was the elite unit. However, some centurians were also appointed because of political connections as well. But the highest rank you could achieve through promotion was that of praefectus castrorum of the Legion, which would I suppose be the equivalent of a sergeant major today, as he was usually an old veteran. But he could eventually retire in wealth and comfort. But the top two positions of each Legion came from civilian ranks, the top spot usually being a new senator, a former tribune, and the number two spot being filled by a tribune. This was at least the way it was done in the classic legion, after the reforms of Augustus.
Tanks ddidn't work too well when they were first used, but Haig wanted as many as possible as soon as possible. The only way to learn was to use them and improve them from experience. The British and French strategy was dominated by the fact that Germany held nearly all of Belgium and some of the economically most productive areas of France: it was a strong pressure to get the Germans out of these areas from politicians in both countries. If the British and French had adopted a defensive strategy, the Germans could have evaded the blockade by forcing Russia to defeat and settling down for a one-front war in the west, holding all the advantages. The cost of fighting the war was far greater than the cost of giving up to all their enemies' demands before it began, but the only way to avoid that cost was not to start it at all- a matter for the politicians.
i have a way, educate the fricking generals no more charge of the light brigade style horses were useful in 1400, not 19 watever also, america could have nuked germany and Japan at the same time (before either had surrendered)
*Cough* http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Tank_history.html "In fact, horse cavalry doctrine in World War I was to "follow up a breakthrough with harassing attacks in the rear", but there were no breakthroughs on the Western Front until the tanks came along." *Cough*
Nowadays, before the actual war, we secretely send covert ops for sabotaging bridges and blow up fuel depots, sniping commanders etc, I think both germany or the allies could have made a breakthrough if a large sleeping cel was behind enemy lines and activated to suddenly disrupt the supply at adesignated point in conjunction with a large frontal attack.
Tanks were the answer to the stalemate of the western front. The problem is that the horrific casulty figures were acceptable in those days. If modern concepts were used, the commanders would have insisted on a defensive posture until a decent aggressive and offensive stratagy which would mimimise casulties eas adopted. Maybe the battle of Cambrai could have been fought in 1916 instead of 1917 and victory instead of a draw would have resulted.
It would be impossible to cut the casualties in half. The best minds were thinking about it for 4 years of WWI and failed. Technology was not there at the time. During WWI, troops could be quickly transported for 100s miles by railroad. However, on the battlefield troop's mobility was about the same as that during Napoleon's wars, or even less (considering that the use of cavalry was quite limited). Combine slow movement of attackers with heavy artillery, trenches and machine guns of defenders and you'll get carnage. Boost to the local mobility of attacking troops (tanks, personal carriers, trucks) would have cut casualties provided some skills. Soviet WWII generals loved sending waves after waves of ill trained infantry and tank crews on the German lines. As a result, Soviets suffered horrendous casualties which makes WWI look as a friendly fight. What could have been done in practical terms considering available technology at the time? I think Germans circa 1918 solved casualty puzzle by using extremely successful storm trooper tactics (individual well trained units were sneaking through enemy lines to hold hedgehog defence of key points while the main force will arrive. Well defended positions were not attacked, they were left behind. It's kind of mini-blitzkrieg). Unfortunately (for Germans), it was too late. They did not have neither man power nor arm/food supplies to exploit their tactical break through. Another casualty decreasing tool was "heavy" WWI era bombers appearing at the end of WWI. Storm troopers + bombing of artillery positions and reserve troops would have cut casualties significantly.
Increase the battleship blockade on Germany, knock Turkey and Austria Hungary out of the war earlier (this wouldnt be difficult, Austria in particular was an anachronistic throwback to the nineteenth century) and try even harder to starve Germany out of the war. Towards the end, subsidise German or Swiss Communists to cause even more trouble amongst the German workers (there was an attempted revolution in 1919). Make a focused effort to destroy the war effort from the inside, because even in 1918 the German army was a viable fighting machine, at least defensively. And like alot of other people have said, make use of new technology an tactics like Storm Troopers and gas.
Are you Lloyd George? That's what he said Wouldn't do much good. The neutral states were only allowed to import enough for their own needs. No doubt a little got through, but not enough to make much odds. They tried. That's how and why Italy came into the war, and why persistent attempts were made to get Greece and other Central European powers involved. Didn't do much good. How? The blockade was about as effective as it could be. How far was the revolution a result of defeat? It didn't happen- for all their fears- in Britain or France. Certainly the High Seas Fleet mutinied when their commanders tried to take them out for one desperate effort, but the army remained solid almost to the end. It was defeated militarily after March. They were retreating steadily and sometimes were suffering complete local defeats. The armistice came because the German army would soon be broken. New technology, to be really effective, would have had to be introduced before the war to give time to make and use it properly. There are some surprising things- that no-one introduced the smg, even though it took months to properly train a rifleman, that no-one looked at the use of aircraft as offensive weapons before the war, but given what the armies had in 1914, and the first months of war, what followed was predictable. Poison gas didn't make a breakthrough. Even stormtroopers only succeeded the once and only temporarily- with the fortuitous aid of fog and because- thanks to LG- they were attacking an overextended and undermanned army.
