3 ms·

"Generals are always prepared to fight the last war". For WWI machine guns forced unplanned trench-based war instead of planned (based on previous wars) cavalry

by trhway 6y ago

"Generals are always prepared to fight the last war". For WWI machine guns forced unplanned trench-based war instead of planned (based on previous wars) cavalry/etc. attack based,. For WWII USSR and France had massive defense-in-depth systems of lines of trenches and fortifications following WWI experience - well, tanks and aircrafts reshaped the war again right in the first days of war. ... Several months ago Armenia having relative up-to-date Russian weapons including air defense systems designed to fight modern manned aircraft lost the war in matter of days to Turkish drones used by Azerbajan (the wars in Libya and Syria during 2019-2020 seems to be the first when drones were actively used against modern conventional weapon systems, and it was success, and that enabled the new approach for the Azerbajan in that 30 year old stalemate which they had tried to fight conventionally last time just in 2016 with no result).

PeterWhittaker 6y ago
German adoption of the LMG, et al, didn't force trench warfare: Trench warfare was the result of ossified allied thinking at the most senior levels and of placing literally zero value on infantrymen. In other words, an epic failure of leadership caused trench warfare. That the Germans were unable to take advantage of their new tech shows how slow they were to evolve their thinking as well: Had they even a hint of previous (and later) Prussian mobility, the war could have turned out much differently. There is a reason LMG-centric squad tactics were near-universal doctrine. Disclaimer for the next bit: I'm Canadian.... Arthur Currie took a different approach, saying 'pay the price of victory in shells—not lives'. He emphasized training, mobility, preparation/repair of supporting areas, and rapid deployment of defensive structures, e.g., barbed wire, etc., to protect and defend gained ground against counterattack (at which the Germans excelled). We get a little chuffed about Canada's Hundred Days.
- Nomentatus 6y ago
  Currie was much liked by the British command because - while he was clever when he could be - he would fight; would sacrifice Canadian lives in diversionary attacks. (Vimy Ridge was merely a diversionary attack, believe it or don't. It succeeded because the Germans had already moved their main defenses well back.) As for trenches, they came in with smokeless powder, and were very extensive and elaborate by the end of the U.S. Civil War. Currie wasn't always magic, (they don't teach you about his messier, less successful battles, and you'll have to hunt for books about them) and was a profound war criminal by today's standards. In Vancouver in training Canadian soldiers were taught by him never to take a German prisoner unless specifically instructed to do so for intelligence reasons. I'm also Canadian, but I knew I was being taught pure crap about the Canadian army (and nearly everything else) in school.
  - PeterWhittaker 6y ago
    Yeah, we have more than a few dirty little secrets re PoWs, even into WWII. And later. We say a good game, but sometimes the walk deviates.... (Did you know that one of the few if only cases of an ally firing on - and I think killing, but I cannot find the reference - a Soviet in WWII was a Canadian? We'd been ordered to take territory they'd been assigned. They requested our withdrawal. We demurred. We can only guess what they were thinking when they chose to press their case, but it was apparently withdrawn quickly when triggers were squeezed. At least this is how it was described in the one source I came across some time ago and cannot find. This one at least covers the basics: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/canadian-paratroopers-saved-denmark-soviet-occupation.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/canadian-parat....)

by trhway 6y ago

PeterWhittaker 6y ago

German adoption of the LMG, et al, didn't force trench warfare: Trench warfare was the result of ossified allied thinking at the most senior levels and of placing literally zero value on infantrymen. In other words, an epic failure of leadership caused trench warfare. That the Germans were unable to take advantage of their new tech shows how slow they were to evolve their thinking as well: Had they even a hint of previous (and later) Prussian mobility, the war could have turned out much differently. There is a reason LMG-centric squad tactics were near-universal doctrine. Disclaimer for the next bit: I'm Canadian.... Arthur Currie took a different approach, saying 'pay the price of victory in shells—not lives'. He emphasized training, mobility, preparation/repair of supporting areas, and rapid deployment of defensive structures, e.g., barbed wire, etc., to protect and defend gained ground against counterattack (at which the Germans excelled). We get a little chuffed about Canada's Hundred Days.

Nomentatus 6y ago
Currie was much liked by the British command because - while he was clever when he could be - he would fight; would sacrifice Canadian lives in diversionary attacks. (Vimy Ridge was merely a diversionary attack, believe it or don't. It succeeded because the Germans had already moved their main defenses well back.) As for trenches, they came in with smokeless powder, and were very extensive and elaborate by the end of the U.S. Civil War. Currie wasn't always magic, (they don't teach you about his messier, less successful battles, and you'll have to hunt for books about them) and was a profound war criminal by today's standards. In Vancouver in training Canadian soldiers were taught by him never to take a German prisoner unless specifically instructed to do so for intelligence reasons. I'm also Canadian, but I knew I was being taught pure crap about the Canadian army (and nearly everything else) in school.
- PeterWhittaker 6y ago
  Yeah, we have more than a few dirty little secrets re PoWs, even into WWII. And later. We say a good game, but sometimes the walk deviates.... (Did you know that one of the few if only cases of an ally firing on - and I think killing, but I cannot find the reference - a Soviet in WWII was a Canadian? We'd been ordered to take territory they'd been assigned. They requested our withdrawal. We demurred. We can only guess what they were thinking when they chose to press their case, but it was apparently withdrawn quickly when triggers were squeezed. At least this is how it was described in the one source I came across some time ago and cannot find. This one at least covers the basics: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/canadian-paratroopers-saved-denmark-soviet-occupation.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/canadian-parat....)