Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Top Five of World War I

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Top Five of World War I Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Top Five of World War I - 2/8/2007 7:36:19 AM   
TriumphRider

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
Of course I meant self-propelled mechanized tanks, gas fair enough...but still never on the scale from ww I, flamethrowers by the Byzantines did not use Petrolium they used resin and they were hand cranked not pressurized so they don't count...

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 91
RE: Top Five of World War I - 2/8/2007 10:39:53 PM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
Greek fire used naptha as one of the ingredients, which is a hydrocarbon.  I dont' see why hand-pumped vs gas powered makes the ancient ones any less of a flame thrower - shorter ranged, but still very effective at throwing flames!!  And  you stil have the Germans introducing "modern" flamethrowers in 1911.

WW1 saw a lot of technologies IMPROVED - such as the adding of internal combustion engines and caterpiller tracks to an armoured box - replacing the ancient horses and wheels of a war wagon to make a tank.  Also many technologies were used on a much larger scale and in new ways.

but the technologies themselves were usually developed or at least invented pre WW1.


(in reply to TriumphRider)
Post #: 92
RE: Top Five of World War I - 2/9/2007 8:32:21 AM   
TriumphRider

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/25/2006
Status: offline
I'm just being a smartass, your point is well-taken, despite those technologies being improved and implemented on a relatively large scale, none of them were, in themselves, given their limitations, enough to give anybody a war-winning trump card. The Germans, as I said, had their chance to win the war in 1915/1916 and Gas, Tanks and Flamethrowers weren't going to win it for them.

I think the greatest argument for the CP's failure in the war was in Holger Herwig's book: The First World War. They failed to manage their few resources as effectively as the allies did, and Germany expended as much effort merely propping up its allies as it did sustaining its own war effort (and with little cooperation from Vienna). I also think, despite everybody's constant harping on allied generals (especially Haig), German generals were just as if not more incompetent than allied ones.

A good example I think is the 1918 Michael offensive. I have yet to speak to someone who does not regard it as a brilliant feat of generalship and the crowning example of infiltration tactics etc. But I think the 1918 offensives were probably the most ill-concieved idiotic and useless offensives in the entire war. I also think they failed tactically as much as they did strategically. Despite the Germans' impressive gains in territory, they still suffered almost an equal amount of casualties as they inflicted. Even more telling is the fact that the michael offensives were carried out without any real strategic objective other than the vague notion of winning the war in a last ditch offensive. Granted they attempted to roll up the British, but any initial strategic goals were quickly tossed away when the Germans decided they wanted Paris. So I guess I take back my comment about generalship being diffecult to judge. On a strategic scale, the Central Powers' generals failed totally and I think harsh criticisms of allied generals are just as dishonest as the pedestal everyone seems to have placed German ones on.

< Message edited by TriumphRider -- 2/9/2007 8:46:42 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 93
RE: Top Five of World War I - 2/9/2007 5:30:04 PM   
sol_invictus


Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
I agree, both sides had a few "good" Generals and many "bad" ones. The war was only winable by national attrition and that was achieved by the British blockade and fresh American reinforcements when all other armies were exhausted. There just wasn't an opportunity, post-Marne, for any brilliant maneuvers that were decisive.

_____________________________

"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero

(in reply to TriumphRider)
Post #: 94
RE: Top Five of World War I - 6/24/2007 1:05:48 AM   
jkBluesman


Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

I think many historians have misinterpreted Falkenhayn's strategy for the Battle of Verdun. He did not simply mean to trade lives in an effort to bleed France white first; his plan was to threaten an objective that France would be compelled to defend. After the initial German advance, the plan was to let France bleed herself white trying to take back the lost territory in order to diminish the threat to Verdun. As it turned out though, once the initial German advance got going, it continued through the momentum of the attack. It seems that it was very difficult to stop some German Generals making a successful advance. This just wasn't the mindset that had been established in the German military officer corps. Thus the battle degenerated into a bloody attrition. Through poor communication with his own forces, Falkenhayn failed to impose his will on his own forces an thus lost controll of the battle. Also, the Generals from all countries, didn't opperate in a political vacum. Their decisions were heavily influenced by the the political considerations of their own nations, which was as it should have been.

I certainly agree that many costly mistakes were made by all political and military leaders from all belligerents, but other than the scale of casualties, which the modern industrial economies made possible, WWI was not much different than most other wars.

Much like the American Civil War, technology had to catch up to make decisive offensive action a reasonable proposition. Given time, the tactical and operational problems were solved to a large degree, but as long as there was no way in which to exploit a breech in the line that was any faster than the speed of marching Infantry, the breech could always be sealed before any significant rupture of the front could take place.

Also, the density of forces on the Western Front compounded the already difficult problems for any offensive. On all other fronts, there was much operational maneuver with decisive results, even using the pre-war tactics.


Falkenhayn was a great general as you can see if you look at his operation on the Balkan.
He was smart enough to realise that the Central Powers would loose the war, but he knew that there was politically no chance for peace in 1916, thus he developed a plan for an attack on Verdun. That he did not maintain control of his offensive and did not stop it, that was murder.

< Message edited by jkBluesman -- 6/24/2007 1:06:00 AM >

(in reply to sol_invictus)
Post #: 95
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Top Five of World War I Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.891