3 ms·

I’ve heard it said that the defining technology of World War 1 was barbed wire. That stopped horse based cavalry from advancing and led to entrenched positions

by Lio 5y ago

I’ve heard it said that the defining technology of World War 1 was barbed wire. That stopped horse based cavalry from advancing and led to entrenched positions. That stalemate lasted until the invention of the tank later in the war.

cf141q5325 5y ago
>barbed wire On the topic i recently watched an interesting documentary on the problems at the battle of the Somme in WW1 https://youtu.be/CbkJS5cLLOQ?list=PLhMDlPcDRBKQuhPC9Ifj2IL8LSIWMTnEb&t=87 https://youtu.be/CbkJS5cLLOQ?list=PLhMDlPcDRBKQuhPC9Ifj2IL8L... ( ~15min segment) A short summary is the British assumption that massive artillery barrage would destroy the German defenses and allow for British troops to walk through easily. Unfortunately they used shrapnel shot which did very little to the defenses and worse, left the barbed wire installations untouched. Advancing troops then got stuck and were mowed down
hef19898 5y ago
On the Western front, and tgat was as much the machine gun, and artillery, as it was field fortifications. WW1 on the Eastern front was very much mobile warfare, including cavalery. Until WW2, for what it's worth.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  We used horse cavalry in WW2 in the middle-east as well. At one point British horse cavalry was fighting Vichy French aircraft.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Horses are great for rough terrain mobility, as are Camels and donkeys. EDIT: People tend to see the Wehrmacht as this fully mechanized beast of an army. Truth is the vast majority of soldiers walked into battle, with animal drawn carriage for their stuff from food to field guns.
  - hassancf 5y ago
    Where exactly in the Middle East?
    - hef19898 5y ago
      The British and French did in the Syria-Libanon campaign in '41. A superficial search didn't show an mounted cavalry in the North Africa campaign. All sides did use horse cavalry quite a lot at the Eastern Front, the Polish cavalry managed to stop German panzers for two days, the Poles and Germans even fought a cavalry-vs-cavalry battle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasnobr%C3%B3d_(1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasnobr%C3%B3d_(193...). The Soviets did some raiding using cavalry, while the SS used horse mounted troops in their genocide operations. Quite fascinating topic, horses in WW2. I'll have to some more research on this.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Last British cavalry charge carrying swords was 1941! There’s a new book on cavalry in WW2 being published soon look out for it.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    In WWI the horse was far more reliable than any mechanical vehicle. Armor was useful enough that WWI had a few tanks, but they broke down often. WWII was just enough later that mechanical vehicles were reliable enough to use - but only if you had new ones, if you were doing like Russia is in Ukraine now and running anything old you were in for problems.
brazzy 5y ago
It was really a combination of different technologies, barbed wire and machine guns among them, but by far the most important was long-range indirect fire artillery with explosive shells.
oneoff786 5y ago
My understanding was that artillery was brutally effective but supply lines couldn’t keep up. So you would blast a trench, and it would be quickly abandoned by the defenders, but when you tried to actually get your guys in to capture it they would just storm it from their backup trench and you would lose because you had no way to support the offensive.
jmyeet 5y ago
AFAIK it's the machine gun that really led to entrenched positions because the death toll of charging or advancing on such positions was huge. Early in the war, generals (who are known for fighting the last war) kept trying. This is one of the reasons the casualties were so high (sometimes >100K in a single day). But the real story of WWI (IMHO) was artillery. Here's a story I heard: at the start of WWI, Russia produced 35,000 artillery shells per month and was using 25,000 a day. By 1917, there were battles on the Western Front where between both sides over a million artillery shells were fired in a matter of hours. As for tanks, this was clearly a huge development. It really nullified machine guns and small arms fire. But the writing was already on the wall for trench warfare. Artillery accuracy and tactics had improved (eg the creeping barrage became possible) and tactics in trench assault (on both sides) were improving.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > But the real story of WWI (IMHO) was artillery. Here's a story I heard: at the start of WWI, Russia produced 35,000 artillery shells per month and was using 25,000 a day. By 1917, there were battles on the Western Front where between both sides over a million artillery shells were fired in a matter of hours. Meanwhile more tonnes of oats and hay for horses were shipped from the UK to France than munitions.

by Lio 5y ago

cf141q5325 5y ago

>barbed wire On the topic i recently watched an interesting documentary on the problems at the battle of the Somme in WW1 https://youtu.be/CbkJS5cLLOQ?list=PLhMDlPcDRBKQuhPC9Ifj2IL8LSIWMTnEb&t=87 https://youtu.be/CbkJS5cLLOQ?list=PLhMDlPcDRBKQuhPC9Ifj2IL8L... ( ~15min segment) A short summary is the British assumption that massive artillery barrage would destroy the German defenses and allow for British troops to walk through easily. Unfortunately they used shrapnel shot which did very little to the defenses and worse, left the barbed wire installations untouched. Advancing troops then got stuck and were mowed down

hef19898 5y ago

On the Western front, and tgat was as much the machine gun, and artillery, as it was field fortifications. WW1 on the Eastern front was very much mobile warfare, including cavalery. Until WW2, for what it's worth.

chrisseaton 5y ago
We used horse cavalry in WW2 in the middle-east as well. At one point British horse cavalry was fighting Vichy French aircraft.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Horses are great for rough terrain mobility, as are Camels and donkeys. EDIT: People tend to see the Wehrmacht as this fully mechanized beast of an army. Truth is the vast majority of soldiers walked into battle, with animal drawn carriage for their stuff from food to field guns.
- hassancf 5y ago
  Where exactly in the Middle East?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    The British and French did in the Syria-Libanon campaign in '41. A superficial search didn't show an mounted cavalry in the North Africa campaign. All sides did use horse cavalry quite a lot at the Eastern Front, the Polish cavalry managed to stop German panzers for two days, the Poles and Germans even fought a cavalry-vs-cavalry battle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasnobr%C3%B3d_(1939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krasnobr%C3%B3d_(193...). The Soviets did some raiding using cavalry, while the SS used horse mounted troops in their genocide operations. Quite fascinating topic, horses in WW2. I'll have to some more research on this.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Last British cavalry charge carrying swords was 1941! There’s a new book on cavalry in WW2 being published soon look out for it.
- bluGill 5y ago
  In WWI the horse was far more reliable than any mechanical vehicle. Armor was useful enough that WWI had a few tanks, but they broke down often. WWII was just enough later that mechanical vehicles were reliable enough to use - but only if you had new ones, if you were doing like Russia is in Ukraine now and running anything old you were in for problems.

brazzy 5y ago

It was really a combination of different technologies, barbed wire and machine guns among them, but by far the most important was long-range indirect fire artillery with explosive shells.

oneoff786 5y ago

My understanding was that artillery was brutally effective but supply lines couldn’t keep up. So you would blast a trench, and it would be quickly abandoned by the defenders, but when you tried to actually get your guys in to capture it they would just storm it from their backup trench and you would lose because you had no way to support the offensive.

jmyeet 5y ago

AFAIK it's the machine gun that really led to entrenched positions because the death toll of charging or advancing on such positions was huge. Early in the war, generals (who are known for fighting the last war) kept trying. This is one of the reasons the casualties were so high (sometimes >100K in a single day). But the real story of WWI (IMHO) was artillery. Here's a story I heard: at the start of WWI, Russia produced 35,000 artillery shells per month and was using 25,000 a day. By 1917, there were battles on the Western Front where between both sides over a million artillery shells were fired in a matter of hours. As for tanks, this was clearly a huge development. It really nullified machine guns and small arms fire. But the writing was already on the wall for trench warfare. Artillery accuracy and tactics had improved (eg the creeping barrage became possible) and tactics in trench assault (on both sides) were improving.

throw0101a 5y ago
> But the real story of WWI (IMHO) was artillery. Here's a story I heard: at the start of WWI, Russia produced 35,000 artillery shells per month and was using 25,000 a day. By 1917, there were battles on the Western Front where between both sides over a million artillery shells were fired in a matter of hours. Meanwhile more tonnes of oats and hay for horses were shipped from the UK to France than munitions.