If you rapid operational adaptation, then I agree.
I think that is a bit simplistic. War was already highly industrialised by the 1870s. War in 1914 was much the same as in 1904, but yes, by 1918/19, the modern roots of modern contemporary warfare were all in place.During WWI the entire concept and methodology of war were radically transformed. The industrialization of war occurred. Machine Guns were introduced as effective non-novelty weapons for the first time. Over the horizon Artillery made its debut. Air power and motorized vehicles first appeared. Chemical weapons were developed and widely used.
That is not true. Defensive means just adapted to greater dispersion and depth - which is why you see the Russian talking about Deep battle, by about 1927.Perhaps most importantly, the tactical advantage definitely switched from offensive operations to defensive operations.
None of that is true. None of your statements are supported by history or operational experience.Compare that with today: fighting forces are abandoning "honorable" uniformed combat for camoflage with civilians, tanks and heavy artillery have been largely neutralized by doctrinal changes. Advanced fighter jets have gone from dynamic, idealized necessity to useless waste of money and parts. Everything we know and knew about fighting wars has been largely obsoleted by an enemy who refuses to fight that way.
Again, not true. What caused the trenches were artillery and the collision of too many forces in too smaller space. Machine guns were a symptom, not a cause. While tanks were important they were very much less decisive than artillery, which is what really shaped the whole tactical and operational conduct of the Western Front - but not all of WW1.What they got was a bogged down bunch of trenchlines dominated by virtually impregnable machine-gun nests that could be pushed back to reserve trenches only temporarily. It wasn't until new ideas and new thinking - ideas like the Tank, or the tactic of "walking artillery fire" were developed that any significant movement on the front lines was achieved.
Well the US had seen that lots of times before. The Apache? The Sioux? The Viet Cong?What we got was an enemy who didn't wear uniforms, who used our freedom and openness as an avenue of attack, and who refused to engage us in equal fights whenever humanely possible.
Well it's all been written down and studied in detail. I can cite you many useful sources if you wish.I don't think that any particular tactics or strategies from WWI are particularly relevant now, but I think we could learn a lot from studying the way that the WWI-era militaries and politicians had to completely re-adjust their thinking and perspectives in order to effectively deal with the results of radical new technologies (internal combustion engine, flight, factories, machined parts, rifling, automatic weaponry).
There really are no similarities between then and now.We need the same types of new ideas and approaches to current systems use and development that were employed to finally turn the tide back then.
The US wilfully chose to ignore insurgency, as something all armies have to be able to do.
I can accept that European Armies ignored the lessons of the Russo-Japanesse War, but it is practically impossible for us to concieve of how great the intellectual and physical shock of WW1 was on all European Armies, and they adapted far faster than anyone in Iraq and A'Stan.
...and welcome to SWJ, where rigour comes with a smile -
Bookmarks