Telsor1
Posts: 19
Joined: 9/24/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
From the strategical point of view, the western allies should have sit out this war. Time was on their side.
Overall, probably yes, but Germany was catching up with Britain as an industrial power which was a concern...also, if Germany took Russian territory, that would have accelerated.
Had everyone just written the Serbs off as a bunch of nutters, either with Austria leaving them alone (unlikely) or letting the Austrians beat them up, then history could have been very different.
quote:
The eastern war is often underestimated.
FIrst, the russians had a lot men, their army had the largest artillery (some say also the best). The austrians had only a really weak army and got kicked heavily in 1914 and 1915.
The problem with Russian artillery is they didn't have enough of it, nor the industry to supply it or the logistic network ( rail mostly ) to get it to the front.
The Austrian army was very variable..they had some excellent troops, and some absolute dross.
quote:
The germans, with their failed plan of defeating france quickly were really pissed off. the fought a two front war, in the east they needed more and more men. (the defeat 1914 in the west was a direct connection of sending 7 divisions more in the east. Germany just had not enough men.
In many ways, the Germans were the 'victims' of their success in the east.
That said, they also suffered from 'turning left' too early and too readily in the west.
quote:
The brits had the cheapest part. They put in some one men, draw in the "less important" empire troops.
As a proportion of available manpower, all nations suffered to a similar degree...ie, too much.
quote:
Oh, don´t forget the silly italians... very costly... and in the end they got nothing.
Oh yeah, gotta love the Italians...Cadorna was probably the worst butcher of the lot...not least to the degree he executed his own men.
quote:
the best german ? Ludendorf (forget Hindenburg, this was just a label)
What did he do right? Tannenberg was von Prittwitz's plan, the big 1915('16?) offensive in the east he opposed..
quote:
The 1918-offensive of the german army was a mistake, instead of attacking in the west, they should have knocked out the italians (this was very easy in late1817/early1918) so they would have had only ONE frontline, all the ressources of the ukraine.
Beating Italy wouldn't win the war, winning in France would. I suspect the German commanders knew the risks, but felt that they had to get in before the Americans arrived in sufficient strength to swing it their way. Germany ( along with France and the British Emprie ) was out of men. Excluding kids becoming old enough to fight and wounded returning to the lines, none of these countries had any replacements. Every man lost couldn't be replaced..the Americans could, and effectively, replaced the British/French losses, so they needed the quick victory.
quote:
The allied counteroffensives in 1918 were "easy", cause Ludendorff, knowing about the situation at home streched the offensives to thin... and payed.
They were also 'easy' because the German army knew it had lost after it's own failed offensives so lost the will to fight. Similarly, the Brits morale broke when the Germans attacked, which helped the German attack look better than it was.
quote:
The revolutionary tactics in ww1 ?
More artillery, tanks (even if they never had a great influence cause their tactical use was really bad) and planes, also the stormtroops
not so much more artillery as better use of it....rather than long bombardments, short, sharp strikes. Avoiding sighting the guns (and warning the defenders) in favor of reliance on statistical estimates. Creeping barrages. Regularly moving the guns forward.
quote:
But often the inferior side (in men) develop the "better" tactical methods.
Only when it's a 'fair fight'..if one side has both, the war ends relatively quickly.
quote:
Just to ignore the french is not fair, they did more and better as the rest of the entente-forces... the french army of 1914-1918 was something different as in 1940.
Agreed.
quote:
The brits, well they lost the elite of their youth(some people really say the huge losses at the somme leaded to a downsize of the insula-gen-pool ;) at last about the good-looking brits this could be true (no, just kidding))
Jokes aside, this isn't far from the truth ( for all sides ). The socialogical effects post war must have been huge. The demographics alone suggest enourmous turmoil...millions died, and propotionally these fell hardest on the young ( those in the army at the time ), the fittest and the rural population ( urban population were more likely to be exempt due to war factories ). What is worse is that many units were drawn from geographical areas...At the Somme, the male population of several small towns was virtually wiped out.
As an example. At the outbreak of the war, in Australia, huge numbers rushed to the colours..the country only had so many rifles, let alone artillery and other support elements, so they got to 'cherry pick' the best of those who volunteered. They were so 'good' that when the ANZAC corp arrived in Egypt for training, the smallest Australian soldier was bigger/taller than the average European Soldier. Very few of them were to end the war alive and unharmed. So genetically and in every other way, yes, the best of a generation were ravaged.
|
Printable Version
RE: Best Generals of WW1 - 
). My old history professor recommended the book as a good overall narrative of the war but with reservations as to it's analytical rigour. But I also notice that Haigs most vehement critics are Antipodean
(please don't take that as anything else but a gently humourous aside)
RE: Best Generals of WW1 - 
. That British generals never learned anything about their troops is a myth!
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