During World War One, each country faced massive amounts of casualties due to the new aged weapons that WWI was fought with. But can these weapons take all the blame of the thousands of casualties each day during the trench fighting? I believe that they aren't the main cause of the death toll that each country suffered because each country was using out dated war fighting tactics where these new weapons could deal the most damage.
Before WWI the most effective battle field tactic that was used was the charge. The charge was used to break through the enemies defensive front. Because the charge was so successful through out history as a way to win a battle, the generals of WWI still thought that they could gain ground on the battle field by doing this. The only thing that the generals were not ready for were the new advancements in weaponry that were first used in WWI.
New weapons like the machine gun, the tank, and poison gas were first deployed in WWI with no real defense mechanisms in place, besides the trenches, that could prevent them from inflicting massive casualties on the enemy. These new weapons would mow down charging enemies because each country didn't know any better tactic then the charge.
After WWI each country realized that the glorious days of the final charge had ended and new military tactics needed to be created to deal with the new technologies of warfare. WWI was so devastating because of the lack of defensive knowledge against these new weapons. If the generals during the time of WWI had realized how devastating the charge was for their troops, the war would have been fought very differently and each country would not see tens of thousands of causalities every day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I haven't read too much on the history of warfare, so I'm curious if the slow-to-adapt mentality of WWI generals was an exception or common in many wars. I know Vietnam and the current wars against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan required a change in tactics, but WWI seemed especially slow. I think this can be attributed to gentlemen's warfare still being practiced, and as we discussed in class, the bourgeoisie officers commanding working class soldiers. Perhaps WWI was what was needed to end these rules and make it easier for commanders to adapting to changing combat situations in the future.
ReplyDeleteYes, the leaders of the lines of WWI were very unprepared for the carnage caused by the new weapons combined with their own antiquated tactics. I don't think that there was anything that they could have done differently at first. They had to try their tried and true tactics, they didn't know anything different. However, wake the hell up, those guys could not have been so damn stupid as to slaughter millions of young men out of simple dedication to tactics. You have got to believe that there was more to it than that. Maybe there wasn't, but God I hope there was.
ReplyDeleteI think that Dan and John are right in that these tactics were the "go-to" strategy for fighting and were difficult to abandon until absolutely forced to by the massive death tolls. However, I think that, as John pointed out, the class differences played a role as well. For the officer class, the cult of the offensive gave them claim to superior status and reinforced their elite notions.
ReplyDelete