4 ms·

In reading the WW1 series of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast (highly recommended by the way) it seems part of what led to the scale of destruction caused

In reading the WW1 series of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast (highly recommended by the way) it seems part of what led to the scale of destruction caused by WW1 was the relative peace between the end of the Napoleanoic Wars and 1914. There were smaller wars here and there but the great powers had not faced off in a generation, no one truly understood how the new technologies would affect warfare and tactics. It makes me concerned about the possibility of the next war between great powers, we've only seen nuclear weapons used twice, no one knows how satellites and cyber attacks can affect war on a grand scale, new biological weapons also have not been deployed at scale. There's a lot of theory out there about what the next great war will look like but without any tactile examples we really have no idea.

scottlocklin 8y ago
Most people seem to agree that the next great power war might be the last one. I don't think 'cyber attacks' or satellites are going to matter much after the ICBMs launch. Though I guess they might in the event of a biowarfare attack. Someone should tell the imbecile US establishment; they seem determined to have one.
corebit 8y ago
Alternatively, I've heard opposing viewpoints that experiences from the US Civil War clearly foreshadowed what would happen in WW1.
- thrower123 8y ago
  Similarly, the experiences of the Russo-Japanese War foreshadowed much of what would later occur in 1915-1918. However, in opposition to these instances stood the Franco-Prussian War, which was the kind of quick, decisive maneuver conflict that informed much of the initial planning for war, particularly the infamous Schlieffen Plan. The campaign on the Western Front in 1914 was really a closely run thing. If the dice had fallen slightly differently, and a few decisions had been made differently, then von Kluk's First Army might have been parading down the Champs-Élysées and the war really would have been over before Christmas.
j03m11 8y ago
Something felt very horrible about reading "what the next great war WILL look like". Would have definitely preferred to read "what the next great war COULD look like" :).
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I would have preferred to read "there will never be war again, and everyone gets free ice cream", but that doesn't change the likelihood that there will almost certainly be one at some point in humanity's future.
Spooky23 8y ago
The US Civil War marked the end of the Napoleonic era. The European powers ignored those lessons for various reasons, mostly because the US and Confederate armies were levies of non-professional soldiers. They also didn't really have an alternative as technology was advanced enough for advanced industrial killing, but not enough for WW2 style engagement. The key advance was the broad availability of the rifle vs. the musket. (Which was an advantage Britain held over Napoleon as well) With a musket, the killing field was about 50-100 yards. The early rifles like the British baker rifle extended that to 200-250 years. Civil War rifles were 500+ yards. Military doctrine for WW1 armies was all about fast maneuver warfare like what was happening in 1914. Mobilization speed, elan and discipline would win. This was true until the other side mobilized, at which point the modern rifle (800-1000 yard killing range), machine gun, and explosive artillery equated to stagnation. What you're seeing today is the future. Nobody can afford to lose large standing army engagements, so limited warfare rules the day. Even the US military has been forced to strip alot of resources from things like armored divisions and artillery, and doesn't have a good public strategy for air power. Limited warfare is cheap, and even the US focuses alot of attention on it -- there are like 50-80k special forces type soldiers.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  There was more than the US Civil War to tip Europe off to what it had been like had they been looking. The Russo-Japanese war, the Franco Prussian war, various colonial wars where the effectiveness of the machine gun against infantry was made obvious, etc, Europe could have learned from these had they wanted to, and indeed some people did but they weren't the people making the decisions.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    Great point, thanks for reminding of that. I remember finding it so depressing how rigid thinking killed so many in college.
jbattle 8y ago
The franco-prussian war was just a few decades prior and had a lot of lessons for those who were willing to learn. Sounds like the biggest lessons learned were more at the strategic / organizational level. I'd argue that the Germans learned those lessons VERY well and came within a hairs-breadth of winning WW1 in the first month or two. Largely on the basis of their impeccably planned and well-prepared invasion of france. Even closer in time was the russo-japanese war. The fighting around port arthur and Liaoyang should have showed the european forces what modern infantry assaults were and were not capable of doing. Actually - I suspect the lessons of the naval fighting in the russo-japanese war WERE learned. In that war, the eastern russian fleet was sunk at anchor in a suprise attack, and the reinforcing fleet, assembled at incredible cost, was sunk and destroyed in a single battle. I wouldn't be surprised if those stories had a lot to do with the German fleet staying bottled up so tightly for the majority of the war. That said - I do agree with you that no one really knows what a great power war would look like in 2019, and that the wars we have been fighting don't shed much light, either on the tactical or strategic scale. How long would the US fleet last once they get within cruise missile range of the Chinese coast? A day? Indefinitely?

scottlocklin 8y ago

Most people seem to agree that the next great power war might be the last one. I don't think 'cyber attacks' or satellites are going to matter much after the ICBMs launch. Though I guess they might in the event of a biowarfare attack. Someone should tell the imbecile US establishment; they seem determined to have one.

corebit 8y ago

Alternatively, I've heard opposing viewpoints that experiences from the US Civil War clearly foreshadowed what would happen in WW1.

thrower123 8y ago
Similarly, the experiences of the Russo-Japanese War foreshadowed much of what would later occur in 1915-1918. However, in opposition to these instances stood the Franco-Prussian War, which was the kind of quick, decisive maneuver conflict that informed much of the initial planning for war, particularly the infamous Schlieffen Plan. The campaign on the Western Front in 1914 was really a closely run thing. If the dice had fallen slightly differently, and a few decisions had been made differently, then von Kluk's First Army might have been parading down the Champs-Élysées and the war really would have been over before Christmas.

j03m11 8y ago

Something felt very horrible about reading "what the next great war WILL look like". Would have definitely preferred to read "what the next great war COULD look like" :).

craftyguy 8y ago
I would have preferred to read "there will never be war again, and everyone gets free ice cream", but that doesn't change the likelihood that there will almost certainly be one at some point in humanity's future.

Spooky23 8y ago

The US Civil War marked the end of the Napoleonic era. The European powers ignored those lessons for various reasons, mostly because the US and Confederate armies were levies of non-professional soldiers. They also didn't really have an alternative as technology was advanced enough for advanced industrial killing, but not enough for WW2 style engagement. The key advance was the broad availability of the rifle vs. the musket. (Which was an advantage Britain held over Napoleon as well) With a musket, the killing field was about 50-100 yards. The early rifles like the British baker rifle extended that to 200-250 years. Civil War rifles were 500+ yards. Military doctrine for WW1 armies was all about fast maneuver warfare like what was happening in 1914. Mobilization speed, elan and discipline would win. This was true until the other side mobilized, at which point the modern rifle (800-1000 yard killing range), machine gun, and explosive artillery equated to stagnation. What you're seeing today is the future. Nobody can afford to lose large standing army engagements, so limited warfare rules the day. Even the US military has been forced to strip alot of resources from things like armored divisions and artillery, and doesn't have a good public strategy for air power. Limited warfare is cheap, and even the US focuses alot of attention on it -- there are like 50-80k special forces type soldiers.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
There was more than the US Civil War to tip Europe off to what it had been like had they been looking. The Russo-Japanese war, the Franco Prussian war, various colonial wars where the effectiveness of the machine gun against infantry was made obvious, etc, Europe could have learned from these had they wanted to, and indeed some people did but they weren't the people making the decisions.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Great point, thanks for reminding of that. I remember finding it so depressing how rigid thinking killed so many in college.

jbattle 8y ago

The franco-prussian war was just a few decades prior and had a lot of lessons for those who were willing to learn. Sounds like the biggest lessons learned were more at the strategic / organizational level. I'd argue that the Germans learned those lessons VERY well and came within a hairs-breadth of winning WW1 in the first month or two. Largely on the basis of their impeccably planned and well-prepared invasion of france. Even closer in time was the russo-japanese war. The fighting around port arthur and Liaoyang should have showed the european forces what modern infantry assaults were and were not capable of doing. Actually - I suspect the lessons of the naval fighting in the russo-japanese war WERE learned. In that war, the eastern russian fleet was sunk at anchor in a suprise attack, and the reinforcing fleet, assembled at incredible cost, was sunk and destroyed in a single battle. I wouldn't be surprised if those stories had a lot to do with the German fleet staying bottled up so tightly for the majority of the war. That said - I do agree with you that no one really knows what a great power war would look like in 2019, and that the wars we have been fighting don't shed much light, either on the tactical or strategic scale. How long would the US fleet last once they get within cruise missile range of the Chinese coast? A day? Indefinitely?