History
How far had war changed, progressed or worsened by WW1
World War I was like no other war ever fought in modern warfare, it was ‘the war to end all wars’. The war began July of 1914, 12 years after the end of the Boer War. The first of its kind, WW1 was fought on a massive scale between numerous different countries. Essentially it was fought between two sides; the allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Russia and USA) and the central powers (Germany, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire).
World War 1 was fought like no other war, on a much larger scale and using different tactics. War had changed since the Crimean and Boer war, tactics used had changed, the conditions had changed, the role of people at home and of politicians had changed but perhaps most importantly the technology had changed and this affected everything.
The 20th Century was the age of new technology. Discoveries were being made that would change the way we live and the way we fought wars. Word War 1 saw the use of much faster and more powerful weaponry, compared to that used in the Crimean and Boer war. For the first time machine guns could be operated by one man and this had a direct effect on the types of tactics used, it put an end to company sized waves of attack. The machine gun was important in World War 1 as it caused a lot of damage to the enemy at a faster rate. New technology made defense much easier and attack much harder. But the introduction of high explosive shells, much more effective than their 19th century counterparts, made it easier to devastate the other side.
At the beginning of World War 1 Germany had the most advanced chemical industry in the world, using this technology they developed weapons which would devastate the other side. The use of chemical warfare was something new and unique to the First World War. It had little effect on the over all outcome of the war, especially after the British developed gas masks to protect themselves, but it did cause a huge amount of suffering, over 1,000,000 casualties. The Germans also developed new technology such as the flamethrower. This had little effect on the battle field, but it did install fear into the British.
Mass production played an important role in the First World War. The American Civil War saw the first use of mass production as an important tactic, but it played an even more important role in the First World War. All sides applied all the force they could to mass produce a large amount of weaponry and ammunition. Munitions factories and their workers, mostly women, played a vital role in producing the weaponry and ammunition needed to beat the other side. In both the Crimean and Boer war, Britain’s industrial strength played a part in their success over the enemy. However, these wars did not rely on mass production. In fact there were often shortages of vital things such as bandages in the Crimean war.
Britain’s Navy also played an important role in the First World War. It was the most powerful navy at the time. The British had many more ships than the Germans, and they were faster and more powerful. The navy wasn’t used as much as was anticipated, however it played a more important role than in both the Crimean and Boer war. In the end it helped to defeat Germany by blockading her sea ports, meaning that little food got through to Germany and so many of the people suffered causing low morale.
A lot of new technology was used during World War 1, but none of it all too effectively. As mentioned earlier, WW1 saw the first use of flame throwers and chemical warfare. But it also saw the use of new vehicle technology such as the tank. The tank proved ineffective because of its tendency to break down, but its use did give both sides a chance to develop it and it would soon prove useful in World War 2. Use of horses was abandoned in the First World War, they were used in the early stages but as most of the war was fought in trenches they were effectively useless. Transportation often involved trains which were able to carry thousands of men, weaponry, ammunitions and other supplies.
Other new technology involved the use of aircraft. The role of aircraft was small compared to that of World War 2, but it did play an important role in gaining information about the enemy lines much as observation balloons were used in the Crimean war. Aircraft could also be used to bomb the enemy.
World War 1 also saw the first use of submarines as a serious weapon of war. They were used by both the German and British to attack merchant ships. Sonar devices and anti-submarine weapons were developed which were used to protect these merchant ships from attack.
Technology did have a large effect on the tactics used during the First World War, much more emphasis was put on a war of attrition. Generals believed that the key to success was to bleed the enemy dry either through their resources or through their men. The battle of Verdun in particular proved to be this sort of a battle, where the Germans hoped to win by killing as many men as possible until they were defeated. Many battles were fought in this way, such as the battle of Somme. Generals hoped that the enemy would give up after days, weeks and months of attack.
But even with the large influence of technology, tactics still remained poor and old fashioned. Battles fought were an ineffectual mix of 20th century technology and 19th century tactics which caused a lot of unnecessary death. Generals failed to adapt their tactics to the technology they had available.
The First World War wasn’t the first to use trench warfare, but it was certainly the most notable for its usage. It was the first and possibly only war to use trench warfare as a major tactic. Conditions in the trenches were terrible and it was hard for either side to make any major advances. The role of attack was made especially difficult in trench warfare, particularly more difficult than defense. Attack involved sending thousands of troops across no mans land, which was littered with mines and barbed wire, to attack the enemy lines. But they often had little effect as they were shot to bits by German artillery. Most often men were ordered to walk across no mans land and not run, which made them even easier targets for the Germans. If any of them did make it across there was little they could do against the trench full of German enemies. But generals thought that the war could be won by numbers and that sending millions of men to their deaths was the best tactic. Similar sorts of tactics were used in the Crimean war, soldiers weren’t given much responsibility or independence until World War 2. Until then they followed strict orders and worked in large groups rather than smaller adaptable units.
The Germans played a largely defensive role in the war, however in the first stages of the war the Germans carried out a planned attack on the allies called the Schlieffen Plan. This involved attacking France from the north in a south-westerly direction, where they were not expecting, and destroying the French army forcing France to defeat. The plan failed due to resistance by the Belgians and Britain’s entry into the war, this delayed Germany and gave France time to send more troops to fight the Germans.
Much of the blame for the poor tactics used is placed on the generals who led the war. The role of general’s hadn’t changed much since the Crimean and Boer war. They still administered commands from a safe distance, from behind the line of action. By World War 1 the army was a slightly less class based organisation but generals were still usually highly educated men from the upper classes of society. It was still very difficult for men to rise through the ranks from private to general.
The term “lions led by donkeys” is a term used to describe the leadership during World War 1 but it was coined during the Crimean war. In both wars decisions were made by generals from a distance and little trust was place in the officers. In the generals defense it could be said that it is better for them to distance themselves from the action. From a distance they can get a better perspective of the battle, they can see the bigger picture. It can also be argued that the generals couldn’t have gotten too attached to their men otherwise they would find it too difficult to do what they must do and send them to their deaths. Also, they had good reason not to trust the officers. Officers were not highly trained and many of them were trained too quickly because they were needed fast to fill the gap caused by large causalities.
But the generals made many mistakes, most often because of their inability to adapt to the situation. They were stubborn and often stuck to a plan no matter what. The Battle of Somme was fought for 4 months using the same tactics. Thousands of men were sent over the top to their deaths in repeated attacks. When problems surfaced the generals failed to adapt, for example when it was discovered that 1/3 shells didn’t explode nothing was done. And there were no alternative plans for when the main plan failed.
Another problem was the poor communication. To be fair to the general’s communication technology was poor and made communication hard. But generals often failed to agree amongst themselves. General Haig and General Rawlinson had conflicting views on how the Battle of Somme should be fought. Haig wanted to go for an all or nothing smash through, but Rawlinson wanted to be more cautious. Haig had very bad people skills and he couldn’t take criticism well. He was often unrealistically optimistic and stubborn.
Leadership – Lions led by donkeys, terrible mistakes, understandable mistakes
Conditions – trench conditions, like public school, gas attacks, atrocities
Home Front – Women, civilian deaths, reaction, economy
World War I was like no other war ever fought in modern warfare, it was ‘the war to end all wars’. The war began July of 1914, 12 years after the end of the Boer War. The first of its kind, WW1 was fought on a massive scale between numerous different countries. Essentially it was fought between two sides; the allied powers (Britain, France, Italy, Russia and USA) and the central powers (Germany, Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire).
World War 1 was fought like no other war, on a much larger scale and using different tactics. War had changed since the Crimean and Boer war, tactics used had changed, the conditions had changed, the role of people at home and of politicians had changed but perhaps most importantly the technology had changed and this affected everything.
The 20th Century was the age of new technology. Discoveries were being made that would change the way we live and the way we fought wars. Word War 1 saw the use of much faster and more powerful weaponry, compared to that used in the Crimean and Boer war. For the first time machine guns could be operated by one man and this had a direct effect on the types of tactics used, it put an end to company sized waves of attack. The machine gun was important in World War 1 as it caused a lot of damage to the enemy at a faster rate. New technology made defense much easier and attack much harder. But the introduction of high explosive shells, much more effective than their 19th century counterparts, made it easier to devastate the other side.
At the beginning of World War 1 Germany had the most advanced chemical industry in the world, using this technology they developed weapons which would devastate the other side. The use of chemical warfare was something new and unique to the First World War. It had little effect on the over all outcome of the war, especially after the British developed gas masks to protect themselves, but it did cause a huge amount of suffering, over 1,000,000 casualties. The Germans also developed new technology such as the flamethrower. This had little effect on the battle field, but it did install fear into the British.
Mass production played an important role in the First World War. The American Civil War saw the first use of mass production as an important tactic, but it played an even more important role in the First World War. All sides applied all the force they could to mass produce a large amount of weaponry and ammunition. Munitions factories and their workers, mostly women, played a vital role in producing the weaponry and ammunition needed to beat the other side. In both the Crimean and Boer war, Britain’s industrial strength played a part in their success over the enemy. However, these wars did not rely on mass production. In fact there were often shortages of vital things such as bandages in the Crimean war.
Britain’s Navy also played an important role in the First World War. It was the most powerful navy at the time. The British had many more ships than the Germans, and they were faster and more powerful. The navy wasn’t used as much as was anticipated, however it played a more important role than in both the Crimean and Boer war. In the end it helped to defeat Germany by blockading her sea ports, meaning that little food got through to Germany and so many of the people suffered causing low morale.
A lot of new technology was used during World War 1, but none of it all too effectively. As mentioned earlier, WW1 saw the first use of flame throwers and chemical warfare. But it also saw the use of new vehicle technology such as the tank. The tank proved ineffective because of its tendency to break down, but its use did give both sides a chance to develop it and it would soon prove useful in World War 2. Use of horses was abandoned in the First World War, they were used in the early stages but as most of the war was fought in trenches they were effectively useless. Transportation often involved trains which were able to carry thousands of men, weaponry, ammunitions and other supplies.
Other new technology involved the use of aircraft. The role of aircraft was small compared to that of World War 2, but it did play an important role in gaining information about the enemy lines much as observation balloons were used in the Crimean war. Aircraft could also be used to bomb the enemy.
World War 1 also saw the first use of submarines as a serious weapon of war. They were used by both the German and British to attack merchant ships. Sonar devices and anti-submarine weapons were developed which were used to protect these merchant ships from attack.
Technology did have a large effect on the tactics used during the First World War, much more emphasis was put on a war of attrition. Generals believed that the key to success was to bleed the enemy dry either through their resources or through their men. The battle of Verdun in particular proved to be this sort of a battle, where the Germans hoped to win by killing as many men as possible until they were defeated. Many battles were fought in this way, such as the battle of Somme. Generals hoped that the enemy would give up after days, weeks and months of attack.
But even with the large influence of technology, tactics still remained poor and old fashioned. Battles fought were an ineffectual mix of 20th century technology and 19th century tactics which caused a lot of unnecessary death. Generals failed to adapt their tactics to the technology they had available.
The First World War wasn’t the first to use trench warfare, but it was certainly the most notable for its usage. It was the first and possibly only war to use trench warfare as a major tactic. Conditions in the trenches were terrible and it was hard for either side to make any major advances. The role of attack was made especially difficult in trench warfare, particularly more difficult than defense. Attack involved sending thousands of troops across no mans land, which was littered with mines and barbed wire, to attack the enemy lines. But they often had little effect as they were shot to bits by German artillery. Most often men were ordered to walk across no mans land and not run, which made them even easier targets for the Germans. If any of them did make it across there was little they could do against the trench full of German enemies. But generals thought that the war could be won by numbers and that sending millions of men to their deaths was the best tactic. Similar sorts of tactics were used in the Crimean war, soldiers weren’t given much responsibility or independence until World War 2. Until then they followed strict orders and worked in large groups rather than smaller adaptable units.
The Germans played a largely defensive role in the war, however in the first stages of the war the Germans carried out a planned attack on the allies called the Schlieffen Plan. This involved attacking France from the north in a south-westerly direction, where they were not expecting, and destroying the French army forcing France to defeat. The plan failed due to resistance by the Belgians and Britain’s entry into the war, this delayed Germany and gave France time to send more troops to fight the Germans.
Much of the blame for the poor tactics used is placed on the generals who led the war. The role of general’s hadn’t changed much since the Crimean and Boer war. They still administered commands from a safe distance, from behind the line of action. By World War 1 the army was a slightly less class based organisation but generals were still usually highly educated men from the upper classes of society. It was still very difficult for men to rise through the ranks from private to general.
The term “lions led by donkeys” is a term used to describe the leadership during World War 1 but it was coined during the Crimean war. In both wars decisions were made by generals from a distance and little trust was place in the officers. In the generals defense it could be said that it is better for them to distance themselves from the action. From a distance they can get a better perspective of the battle, they can see the bigger picture. It can also be argued that the generals couldn’t have gotten too attached to their men otherwise they would find it too difficult to do what they must do and send them to their deaths. Also, they had good reason not to trust the officers. Officers were not highly trained and many of them were trained too quickly because they were needed fast to fill the gap caused by large causalities.
But the generals made many mistakes, most often because of their inability to adapt to the situation. They were stubborn and often stuck to a plan no matter what. The Battle of Somme was fought for 4 months using the same tactics. Thousands of men were sent over the top to their deaths in repeated attacks. When problems surfaced the generals failed to adapt, for example when it was discovered that 1/3 shells didn’t explode nothing was done. And there were no alternative plans for when the main plan failed.
Another problem was the poor communication. To be fair to the general’s communication technology was poor and made communication hard. But generals often failed to agree amongst themselves. General Haig and General Rawlinson had conflicting views on how the Battle of Somme should be fought. Haig wanted to go for an all or nothing smash through, but Rawlinson wanted to be more cautious. Haig had very bad people skills and he couldn’t take criticism well. He was often unrealistically optimistic and stubborn.
Leadership – Lions led by donkeys, terrible mistakes, understandable mistakes
Conditions – trench conditions, like public school, gas attacks, atrocities
Home Front – Women, civilian deaths, reaction, economy
posted by Yours Truly at 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home