World War I Buffs

[FeuerFrei]

Probably the British tanks. They were a real game changer. Rewrote the rules of war. Trenches became obsolete

One interesting trench warfare technique (not tank related) was burrowing under the enemy trench line and planting monster explosive caches. When the mines were detonated prior to an offensive, they would create huge cratered gaps in the opposing trench line.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Probably the British tanks. They were a real game changer. Rewrote the rules of war. Trenches became obsolete

One interesting trench warfare technique (not tank related) was burrowing under the enemy trench line and planting monster explosive caches. When the mines were detonated prior to an offensive, they would create huge cratered gaps in the opposing trench line.

we did this for the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Probably the British tanks. They were a real game changer. Rewrote the rules of war. Trenches became obsolete

One interesting trench warfare technique (not tank related) was burrowing under the enemy trench line and planting monster explosive caches. When the mines were detonated prior to an offensive, they would create huge cratered gaps in the opposing trench line.

sappers were around long before wwi trenches.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Probably the British tanks. They were a real game changer. Rewrote the rules of war. Trenches became obsolete

Not really. Tanks eventually helped break out of the trenches, but they weren't exclusively responsible. It was a broad shift in strategy and the addition of new technology which greatly aided offensive maneuvering. We can credit the end of trenches to tanks, but we also have to acknowledge the role that the following played in removing trenches:

- advances in artillery, including greater accuracy, better counter-battery fire, and tactics such as rolling barrages.
- advances in the machine gun which helped make it lighter and more capable of sustained offensives.
- the increased prominence of sub-machine guns, flame throwers, and other weapons which helped make trenches less easy to defend once they were breached.
- improvements in strategy, particularly the strategies seen during the Spring Offensive. Smaller teams of highly trained shock troops, supported by coordinated air and artillery helped drive deep wedges into trench works and quickly funnel men through these openings.
- the tank. Obviously, as the tank improved in quality it helped make the machine gun a less effective weapon. Their shock value was good for breaching the initial line of the trenches, however, they were unable to end trench warfare on their own simply because they broke down too often and were rarely able to carry the battle through the trenches.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

 

[TehMac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

Pretty interesting firearm.

 

[Gibsons]

I'll go with the machine gun too. The machine gun is what forced both sides into the quagmire of trench warfare, and trench warfare is the main story of most any WWI land battle.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

While the technology didn't dramatically improve until recoiless barrels in the 20s / 30s, I'd say that artillery was a huge component of World War I simply because it helped reinforce the existing trench-based warfare that existed. Like I said, artillery fueled advances in aviation and, through rolling barrages, became a key component of eventually breaking the trenches and keeping casualties down.

I completely agree that artillery didn't really come into its own until the Second World War, but, like with a lot of things, the stuff that we saw in the 40s was a direct result of innovation and creativity in WW1. The First World War was where a lot of countries got their ideas for artillery use in World War II. That is also true of most strategy that people like to think was unique to WW2. It wasn't. If you look back at 1917-1918, we can find most of the ideas that were so successful 20 years later.

 

[lupi]

.

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

While the technology didn't dramatically improve until recoiless barrels in the 20s / 30s, I'd say that artillery was a huge component of World War I simply because it helped reinforce the existing trench-based warfare that existed. Like I said, artillery fueled advances in aviation and, through rolling barrages, became a key component of eventually breaking the trenches and keeping casualties down.

I completely agree that artillery didn't really come into its own until the Second World War, but, like with a lot of things, the stuff that we saw in the 40s was a direct result of innovation and creativity in WW1. The First World War was where a lot of countries got their ideas for artillery use in World War II. That is also true of most strategy that people like to think was unique to WW2. It wasn't. If you look back at 1917-1918, we can find most of the ideas that were so successful 20 years later.

First of all, thanks for all the contributions guys! Very cool to see a lot of people in on this thread.

BeauJangles, I was watching a documentary recently about the artillery. The narrator was talking about how one of aerial pictures taken looked as if there were a million holes all over the ground from the artillery strikes. I agree with your statements about the artillery.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

While the technology didn't dramatically improve until recoiless barrels in the 20s / 30s, I'd say that artillery was a huge component of World War I simply because it helped reinforce the existing trench-based warfare that existed. Like I said, artillery fueled advances in aviation and, through rolling barrages, became a key component of eventually breaking the trenches and keeping casualties down.

I completely agree that artillery didn't really come into its own until the Second World War, but, like with a lot of things, the stuff that we saw in the 40s was a direct result of innovation and creativity in WW1. The First World War was where a lot of countries got their ideas for artillery use in World War II. That is also true of most strategy that people like to think was unique to WW2. It wasn't. If you look back at 1917-1918, we can find most of the ideas that were so successful 20 years later.

Actually there was a huge advancement in artillery right before WWI, the hydropneumatic recoil system. Before WWI, artillery units had a tough time dealing with the recoil knocking the gun backwards and making it very difficult to aim consistently. With the new recoil system the gun could stay in place and you could adjust the aim. WWI artillery was much much more effective than in any previous war.

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

While the technology didn't dramatically improve until recoiless barrels in the 20s / 30s, I'd say that artillery was a huge component of World War I simply because it helped reinforce the existing trench-based warfare that existed. Like I said, artillery fueled advances in aviation and, through rolling barrages, became a key component of eventually breaking the trenches and keeping casualties down.

I completely agree that artillery didn't really come into its own until the Second World War, but, like with a lot of things, the stuff that we saw in the 40s was a direct result of innovation and creativity in WW1. The First World War was where a lot of countries got their ideas for artillery use in World War II. That is also true of most strategy that people like to think was unique to WW2. It wasn't. If you look back at 1917-1918, we can find most of the ideas that were so successful 20 years later.

Actually there was a huge advancement in artillery right before WWI, the hydropneumatic recoil system. Before WWI, artillery units had a tough time dealing with the recoil knocking the gun backwards and making it very difficult to aim consistently. With the new recoil system the gun could stay in place and you could adjust the aim. WWI artillery was much much more effective than in any previous war.

They even made recoil ramps for artillery guns that did not have the hydroneumatic recoil system. The gun would go off, the wheels would start moving backwards till they reached the top of the ramp, and then gravity would pull it back down the ramp, and it would move forward and right back into place. Definitely less accurate, but still a primitive form of recoil dampening that was probably slightly effective.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

While the technology didn't dramatically improve until recoiless barrels in the 20s / 30s, I'd say that artillery was a huge component of World War I simply because it helped reinforce the existing trench-based warfare that existed. Like I said, artillery fueled advances in aviation and, through rolling barrages, became a key component of eventually breaking the trenches and keeping casualties down.

I completely agree that artillery didn't really come into its own until the Second World War, but, like with a lot of things, the stuff that we saw in the 40s was a direct result of innovation and creativity in WW1. The First World War was where a lot of countries got their ideas for artillery use in World War II. That is also true of most strategy that people like to think was unique to WW2. It wasn't. If you look back at 1917-1918, we can find most of the ideas that were so successful 20 years later.

Actually there was a huge advancement in artillery right before WWI, the hydropneumatic recoil system. Before WWI, artillery units had a tough time dealing with the recoil knocking the gun backwards and making it very difficult to aim consistently. With the new recoil system the gun could stay in place and you could adjust the aim. WWI artillery was much much more effective than in any previous war.

As I said before, the prime innovation of artillery in ww1 would be the ability to mass them for fire, and that was due to increases in industry (which if you really want to get at the base point, would be the main innovation of ww1), which is not an improvement of the weapon sysytem itself. Proximity fuses. Time of target programming, rocket delivery systems and such far outpaced anything seen by the artilleryman since Napolean.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

Perhaps you've heard of the Maginot line? In any case, I never said the machine gun was solely responsible for the changes in warfare, I only claim it to be the most influential.

 

[zerocool84]

I find WWI much more interesting than WWII. More innovations and changed the course of history that we are still living today.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Franz Ferdinand (the band). What do I win?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

Perhaps you've heard of the Maginot line? In any case, I never said the machine gun was solely responsible for the changes in warfare, I only claim it to be the most influential.

that great line that was breached twice?

as for MG being the greatest WW1 innovation, the best design of that era didn't even see service in the field.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

Perhaps you've heard of the Maginot line? In any case, I never said the machine gun was solely responsible for the changes in warfare, I only claim it to be the most influential.

that great line that was breached twice?

as for MG being the greatest WW1 innovation, the best design of that era didn't even see service in the field.

The question, though is what is the most impressive piece of technology, which is very subjective. Still, impressive to me = impact and importance, and artillery and the machine gun were among the most impressive, and important pieces of technology in the war.

The submarine is a good #3, tanks and airplanes are probably #4 and 5.

Originally posted by: nboy22

BeauJangles, I was watching a documentary recently about the artillery. The narrator was talking about how one of aerial pictures taken looked as if there were a million holes all over the ground from the artillery strikes. I agree with your statements about the artillery.

Even though it is isn't part of World War I, go to Pointe Du Hoc sometime. You can still see the craters made by US and British warships shelling the German positions there. It's mighty impressive to see these massive ditches and realize that they're craters.

Originally posted by: lupi
And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

Is it really that amazing? The success of the Spring Offensive showed that, even by 1918, trenches were reaching the end of their effectiveness. The advances made in technology in the 1920s made trenches a thing of the past.

Besides the French, who really had no idea what conclusions to draw from World War I, nobody else attempted World War I-style trenches again, mostly because they realized that combined arms with reliable vehicles could project force very quickly on a very concentrated point. To be able to respond, defense needed to be dynamic and flexible, not rigid and entrenched.

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I find WWI much more interesting than WWII. More innovations and changed the course of history that we are still living today.

Yes! I wrote my Master's thesis on World War I and I think that it is finally getting its time in the sun. The level of innovation in WW1 is astounding and much of it, especially in the latter half of the war, foreshadows the technology and strategy seen in World War II, especially in Europe.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

 

[GasX]

The tank was revolutionary, but it didn't make a massive impact until Germany used it to spearhead blitzkreig. I'd say the machine was the most significance, if for no other reason than the shear numbers of men cut down by them in that special niche of hell called trench warfare.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: lupi
A toss up between tanks and airplanes.

More men were killed by machine gun than tanks, airplanes and gas combined.

Yeah, but planes spotting for artillery was a highly strategic combo that cant be overlooked. Also the use of wireless transmitters sending morse code to the batteries was new.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

For the most part this is true. There were a number of things used for the first time in a major conflict though.

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

The same arguments could be used for airplanes, but airplanes weren't packing much of a punch in those days. Mostly valuable for recon.

Machine guns and artillery had already been used in other conflicts, and although they were certainly the dominant means of killing the enemy and holding the lines for each side, I can't really single them out. It's pretty typical for a major conflict to see the use of newer/better guns/arty.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I would love to see a Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers quality movie about WWI.

The conditions just seem so much more horrible than any other war I've studied...I'd like to see how well a current director could translate that on screen.