The role of artillery was altered between both world wars, as was the role of most tanks.
Artillery assumed a role in support of mobile warfare in WW2, including quick reaction defensive and offensive fires - its job was much more about pre-planned fires in WW1, which restricted it to a much smaller role in that war.
Likewise, tanks had very different roles in WW2 than in WW1. They were breakthrough tanks with marginal exploitation capability (about the depth of a division sector) in WW1 , but became the spearhead of exploitation efforts in WW2 - the German army even preferred to achieve breakthrough without much if any tank involvement. The Japanese tank actions in Malaya had no resemblance of Cambrai either. The role, purpose and technical abilities were entirely different.
It's simply not appropriate to throw them into a bag and downplay the differences (AS YOU DID). An Frankish knight at Poitiers had certain similarities with a heavy Mongol horseman, but it's inappropriate to throw them into one basket labelled "horse cavalry" unless you want to dumb history down for a 6th grader.
It's the same with tanks. They're all the same if you go very abstract or dumb down very much, but that serves no real purpose. It's much more useful to look at the differences, for that's where the lessons are hidden.
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Bookmarks