The First World War witnessed an appalling number of casualties. Due partly to this fact, some historians, developed the perception that commanders on both sides depended on only one disastrous approach to breaking the stalemate. These historians attributed the loss of life to the reliance on soldiers charging across no-man’s land only to be mowed down by enemy machineguns. The accuracy of this, however, is fallacious because both the German’s and Allies developed and used a variety of tactics during the war. The main reason for battlefield success and eventual victory by the Allies came from the transformation of battlefield tactics; nevertheless, moral played a major role by greatly affecting the development of new tactics and the final outcome of the war.
Tactics during the early stages of the war led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a huge loss in moral by the Allies. Originally the Allies employed Napoleonic Era tactics that relied heavily on infantry lining up shoulder to shoulder and advancing across open fields. The French further claimed that if they attacked with superior moral they could overcome any foe. Due to the widespread utilization of machine guns and long-range rifles, these tactics resulted in enormous casualties. The French and British, as well, continued to funnel soldiers into failed offensives, even if the battle resulted in little or no gain, which further led to a decline in moral. With thousands of soldiers’ dead, the armies could not continue to fight with these tactics or the armies would cease to exist or soldiers would refuse to continue to fight.
When Allied soldiers began to refuse to return to the front lines their officers, in response, made compromises to retain what l...
... middle of paper ...
...ced to retreat or be cut off from their supplies. The German High Command, at this point, knew that they could no longer continue to fight and needed to surrender or face annihilation.
Tactical changes within both main armies fighting on the Western Front would eventually lead to battlefield success for both sides while leading to an impending victory by the Allies. The Germans on one hand developed the use of combined arms, Stormtroopers. These soldiers while extremely successful also led to a destruction of the German moral and reserves due to high casualty rates. On the other side, the Allies stymied their original failures in tactics by maintaining moral and developing their own tactics. These new tactics included the creeping barrage, difeme en profondeur, and bite and hold. By combing these with a genuine strategy the allies overcame the weakened German Army.
In 1914, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife from Austro-Hungarian Empire caused an enormous war called World War I, that killed and injured about thirty million lives. It also destroyed the economy later on. World War I changed combat tactics in a whole new way, where people would die in a blink of an eye. Commanders and soldiers did not know about the capabilities of their new arsenals. The new industrialized developed weapons devastated the battlefield with blood, mountain of corpses, and small craters. Some of the weapons that were used were machine guns, poison gas, mortars, and tanks. Soldiers described the battlefield as a nightmare. This was the start of a new era arising through warfare. A very dangerous way to bring great change to the world but was not intended. World War I brought great changes to the world but, considering the countless deaths, it was the worst war ever, an inhumane war.
Between the years of 1914 to 1918, the whole of Europe was locked in arms, not only for pride but mostly for survival. The years of war brought devastation upon all societies. Men were massacred in droves, food stuff dwindled, and at times an end seemed non-existent. The foundation of the first Great War, one can muse, began as a nationalistic race between rival nations. By the onset of 1914, once the Archduke Frendinad had been assassinated in Saravejo, the march for war became not just a nationalistic opinion, but now a frenzy to fight. In battle, unlike previous wars, new weaponry caused drastic alterations in strategy. No longer will armies stand to face their rivals on the plains. Now the war will be fought in trenches, hidden underground from the new, highly accurate artillery. In many respects, World War I was a war of artillery, gas, and mechanization. Except as new weapons were becoming essential for battle, the leaders, on all sides, appeared too inept to fight this new style of warfare. Generals, or any leader for that matter higher in the chain of command, sent their troops in massive assaults. Regardless of their losses there were no deviations from the main ideology of sending massive waves of men and shells to take a position. On an individual level, the scene of repeated assaults and mayhem of the front line did little to foster hope for their superiors or even for the naiveté of their fellow countrymen who were not fighting. I submit that in times of sheer madness and destitution, as during World War I, men banded together to form make-shift families for support and companionship when all seemed lost; as exemplified in the novel All Quiet on the Western Front.
As war wages on, the German youth continuously fight forces beyond their control leading the young soldiers to dehumanization. Remarque indicates that patriotism is a thought of the past as the young newcomers are exposed to the authenticity of trench warfare. In the beginning of the novel the German recruits experience some inhumane training in the trenches running along the Rhineland, and thus quickly learn that surviving or dying has hardly anything to do with their toughness (Napierkowski 6). This realization materializes as the young Germans start fighting fresh, well-equipped Allies troops. Not only are the Allies troops fresh and well-equipped, but they outnumber the German troops in quantity and devastating equipment. The Allies list of destructive equipment includes: tanks, airplanes, poison gas, bombs and machine guns. The Allies technology only make survival for the German troops only more difficult as the trenches offer ...
World War I is marked by its extraordinary brutality and violence due to the technological advancement in the late 18th century and early 19th century that made killing easier, more methodical and inhumane. It was a war that saw a transition from traditional warfare to a “modern” warfare. Calvary charges were replaced with tanks; swords were replaced with machine guns; strategic and decisive battles were r...
The First Battle of the Marne, also classified as the most, “significant land battle of the twentieth century,” impresses one for its scale, decisiveness, and devastating use of rapid small arms fire, machine guns, hand grenades, and artillery. From 5 through 11 September, Germany and France each fielded over 2 million men (British 130,000) between Paris and Verdun. The most modern military technology to date was brought to bear by both sides to terrible effect. During the month of August, each country suffered 200,000 casualties with an additional 300,000 casualties occurring during early September near the river banks of the Marne. Also called the most decisive land battle since Waterloo in 1815, The First Battle of the Marne had immediate operational and strategic impact on World War One. Operationally, the German occupation of Paris was halted, France’s armies avoided destruction, and the British maintained their position on the European continent. Strategically, both armies were doomed to trench warfare and thus a murderous four year stalemate where international casualties would be counted in the tens of millions. The person most responsible for Germany losing the First Battle of the Marne is General Helmuth Johannes Ludwig Von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff and senior member of the Oberste-Heereslieitung (OHL), German Army Supreme Command. Moltke failed to effectively lead the German Army, understand the operational environment, assess the battle, describe clear directives, and to direct his ...
In All Quiet on the Western Front, it becomes very apparent that some of the soldiers do not feel as if World War I was their fight, when comrades begin discussing the origin of war. One comrade, Albert states that a war is initiated by “one country badly offending the other” (204). This lead to a discussion over why the soldiers are fighting when truly it is one person or a small group of people that are directly offended by an opposing group in a similar position of power. Therefore, why must they discover the true horrors of war while simultaneously putting their lives on the line, when the ones who began the predicament, propelled false advertisement with propagandas that romanticized and glorified war don’t have to live as if the next second may be their
Trench warfare had been used in past wars, but the Germans popularized this style during World War I. Germans sought to capture Paris, but faced the French at the Marne River on September 5, 1914. The French army had stopped the German advance and began to push them back (Torr, 30). The Germany army refused to give up gained territory so it dug into the ground to resist the French. Unknowingly, the Germans made the biggest mistake of the war. The trenches began to spread and soon became the predominant style of battle.
...I without much resistance from the German Army. The German army was reduced to reactionary action after this battle and was unable to go on the offensive for the rest of the Second World War.
The foundation of mobile warfare has its roots in Ancient and Medieval World. The German Army late in World War I initially developed basic tactics that eventually evolved into modern mobile warfare. Germans developed those tactics in an attempt to overcome the static trench warfare on the Western Front. Elite "Sturmtruppen" infantry units were created to attack enemy positions using the momentum of speed and surpass but eventually failed because of the lack of mobility and support needed in order to continue advancing further into enemy controlled territory. During 1920s, British military philosophers Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart, General J.F.C. Fuller and General Martell further developed tactics of mobile warfare. They all postulated that tanks could not only seize ground by brute strength, but could also be the central factor in a new strategy of warfare. If moved rapidly enough, of tanks could smash through enemy lines and into the enemy's rear, destroying supplies and artillery positions and decreasing the enemy's will to resist. All of them found tank to be an ultimate weapon able to penetrate deep into enemy territory while followed by infantry and supported by artillery and airfare. In late 1920s and early 1930s, Charles De Gaulle, Hans von Seekt, Heinz Guderian and many others became interested in the concept of mobile warfare and tried to implement it in an organizational structure of their armies. Heinz Guderian organized Panzers into self-contained Panzer Divisions working with the close support of infantry, motorized infantry, artillery and airfare. From 1933 to 1939, Germany was on a quest to fully mechanize their army for an upcoming conflict.
Since the beginning of the humanity, human nature revealed man himself has an internal instinct to protect their immediate surroundings and fellow man from harm. Conflict and deceit dates back to the first man and woman sitting in a garden under an apple tree. It is important to understand that conflict breeds war and war breeds death. This paper will provide an understanding of historical precedents contributing to the evolution of field artillery. From the first fire mission, to an informative narrative from the Battle of the Bulge, to include emerged implications playing a major role in today's modern battlefield. To this day, field artillery Soldiers remain King of Battle, now follow me.
... many French commanders not even knowing where their own subordinate units were located.11 The French placed their defense in old, outdated tactics of static warfare. Gone were the days of two sides slugging it out against prepared reinforced defense structures. Closely integrating concentrated armor, infantry, and closely supported by aviation assets all combined to crush France in a matter of only six weeks. France was simply not prepared for this new age of warfare.
Citino cites ample evidence to show that Germany, and Prussia before it, had always sought to fight short wars because of its paucity of resources and central position in Europe. Short wars necessitated speed, audacity and nimble operational maneuvers. In turn, these priotities required commanders to be aggressive and seize the earliest possible moment to try to force a battlefield decision. Citino presents repeated examples of this pattern as a hallmark of Prussian/German operations from the seventeenth century to the early phase of World War II. For Citino, this is the German way of war: a war of movement intended to bring a sudden and decisive victory. Simply put, Citino sees that Germany (and Prussia before it) simply did not have the luxury of time in fighting, which necessitated the development of Bewegungskrieg early on in the Prussian military tradition. For Citino, blitzkrieg merely constitutes the effective adaptation of new technologies to this traditional Prussian/German style of
The Battle of the Somme epitomizes the harsh realities of trench warfare for the Allies and represents the negligent battle planning and technological advancements that are associated with the stalemate of World War One. Trench warfare was common across the Western Front, with similar strategies being employed by both opposing sides. Sir Douglas Haig, one of the British coordinators for the Somme offensive is blamed with an offensive strategy destined for failure. The British offensive, an utter failure, resulted in a stalemate, which was common throughout World War One. The British development of the tank, while it eventually ended the horrendous stalemate, was ineffectively used during the Somme.
By December 1914 the First World War had reached a dilemma on the western front that neither the triple entente nor the triple alliance had expected. The war had reached a stalemate, a state where both sides are so evenly balanced that neither can breakthrough against the enemy. The advances in Technology played a big role in creating the stalemate through strong defensive weaponry such as Machine Guns and Artillery, this caused ‘trench warfare’ (BOOK 48). Trench war is when troops from both sides are protected from the enemy’s firepower through trenches. Many advances in technology also attempted to break the stalemate throughout the war with tanks, gas and aircraft, these however failed. Eventually the stalemate was broken through a combination of improved technology, new strategies and the blockading of the German ports.
The First World War introduced a new type of warfare. New weapons were combined with old strategies and tactics. Needless to say, the results were horrific. However, a new type of warfare was introduced: trench warfare. In the movie War Horse, the character that owned the horse originally while he worked on his farm, Albert Narracott, finally was old enough to join the army. His first sight of battle was the Battle of Somme which took place in France near the Somme River. During this battle, the British troops start out in trenches, which were pretty much tunnels dug strategically to avoid gunfire. The soldiers would wait until they were told to advance, and they would run from one trench to the next. Trenches and the area between trenches were muddy and the trenches themselves were poorly conditioned (http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch1_trench.html). Many of the soldiers who fought in trenches succumbed to a foot disease called trench foot and if not treated immediately, gangrene could infect the foot and an amputation would be necessary for survival. Commanding officers ordered one or t...