WW1 was the first turn-of-the-century war fought with automatic rifles. There were battles foreshadowing the impact of automatic guns (Russo-Japanese War) but the real impact (trench warfare and the later development of war tanks) were seen developing on the fly.
Just go and search for early pictures of ww1, France was still using 19th century flamboyant uniforms that proved totally ineffective and later gave way to brown, camouflaged cloth.
Everyone thought WW1 would be quick and dissipate in a matter of months. Nobody was prepared for year long conflicts.
We can think that the war was predictably stupid because in hindsight we can see all the stupidity, but that is our historical privilege. Nobody was prepared for that in 1914. Just like we might very well be totally unprepared for the probable next worldwide conflict.
Everyone thought WW1 would be quick and dissipate in a matter of months. Nobody was prepared for year long conflicts.
Everyone, except those who were in the military officer corps and thus knew that modern war was going to be a long, drawn-out, bloody affair. In other words, the experts knew it was going to be long, but the politicians and the media ignored the experts' opinions because what do they know?
I agree that that is a problem with the system back then (and even now considering how much military power is under the POTUS). Regardless, those are the ones that are in charge so I think it is fair to say we, as in the society was not prepared for those conflicts.
And this repeated itself in the second world war. The late battles near japanese homeland were the first to reach the United States population without the heroic and patriotic filtering, all thanks to the work of Tom Lea.
The civil war also had some cannons blasting... but the weapons were VERY different. A well trained soldier was shooting 2-3 bullets per minute in the civil war. WW2 machine guns were 25 rounds per second. There is no comparison of the destruction capabilities...
Sure, but at a limited scale. And the Germans knew that a trench duel was unwinnable going into ww1, hence the Schlieffen-plan. The intention was to take out France in aug 1914 and then swing around before Russia was even fully mobilized.
The major turning points were still more like battles from the Napoleonic Wars than WWI.
It's also much easier with hindsight to view them as precursors to the trench warfare of WWI. But I believe contemporaries viewed it more like classic siege warfare.
WWI occurred in a brief window where defensive technology/strategy was much more effective* than offensive technology/strategy.
*defense almost ways is easier, but it was much more than normal in that period.
Comments
WW1 was the first turn-of-the-century war fought with automatic rifles. There were battles foreshadowing the impact of automatic guns (Russo-Japanese War) but the real impact (trench warfare and the later development of war tanks) were seen developing on the fly.
Just go and search for early pictures of ww1, France was still using 19th century flamboyant uniforms that proved totally ineffective and later gave way to brown, camouflaged cloth.
Everyone thought WW1 would be quick and dissipate in a matter of months. Nobody was prepared for year long conflicts.
We can think that the war was predictably stupid because in hindsight we can see all the stupidity, but that is our historical privilege. Nobody was prepared for that in 1914. Just like we might very well be totally unprepared for the probable next worldwide conflict.
Everyone, except those who were in the military officer corps and thus knew that modern war was going to be a long, drawn-out, bloody affair. In other words, the experts knew it was going to be long, but the politicians and the media ignored the experts' opinions because what do they know?
I agree that that is a problem with the system back then (and even now considering how much military power is under the POTUS). Regardless, those are the ones that are in charge so I think it is fair to say we, as in the society was not prepared for those conflicts.
And this repeated itself in the second world war. The late battles near japanese homeland were the first to reach the United States population without the heroic and patriotic filtering, all thanks to the work of Tom Lea.
Trench warfare, and really much of the technology used in WWI, was seen first in the American civil war
The civil war also had some cannons blasting... but the weapons were VERY different. A well trained soldier was shooting 2-3 bullets per minute in the civil war. WW2 machine guns were 25 rounds per second. There is no comparison of the destruction capabilities...
They absolutely invented machine guns in the Civil War, as well as metal ships.
"In 1862, Richard Jordan Gatling invented a multi-barreled, rotating gun operated by a hand crank that could fire up to 200 rounds a minute."
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/gatling-gu...
I'm not sure what war you're thinking of.
How many were in the civil war vs ww2? What was your odds of going against one? Huge huge huge difference
Sure, but at a limited scale. And the Germans knew that a trench duel was unwinnable going into ww1, hence the Schlieffen-plan. The intention was to take out France in aug 1914 and then swing around before Russia was even fully mobilized.
The major turning points were still more like battles from the Napoleonic Wars than WWI.
It's also much easier with hindsight to view them as precursors to the trench warfare of WWI. But I believe contemporaries viewed it more like classic siege warfare.
WWI occurred in a brief window where defensive technology/strategy was much more effective* than offensive technology/strategy.
*defense almost ways is easier, but it was much more than normal in that period.