World War 1

[Jamieva]

Just like in the ACW, their tactics had not caught up to the technology and weapons they had at the beginning of the war.

[30th_il]

The modern war is always fought with the past's war's generals, both in tactics and use of firearms. The cost is not so much money as soldier's blood.

[5fish]

I have not been able to find out more them all the armies at the beginning of WWI were Horse driven armies. Meaning horse drawn wagons were still used to carry thier supplies to the front and trains were used to move armies around too.

I argue if the German army had use trucks instead of hoses they would have beaten the French like they well do in in WWII.

By WWI horses and men on the march could not keep pace the how fast the war was moving so the Germans were out running thier supply chain if they had trucks as thier main supply vehicle then supplies would have keep up with thier fast moving army...

The German army had beaten both the French and British armies it was thier lack of supplies and reinforcements that bogged them down... The British and the French should thank the lack of foresight in German logistics or they would have been beaten in the first months of the war...

[gary]

Von Moltke the younger modified the war plans. He didn't keep the right wing as strong as it should have been. It didn't help when one German army turned towards Paris instead of staying its course. Supply couldn't keep up either (horse drawn and Eurail wasn't serving the Prussian Army then).

[elektratig]

Originally Posted by gary

Von Moltke the younger modified the war plans. He didn't keep the right wing as strong as it should have been. It didn't help when one German army turned towards Paris instead of staying its course. Supply couldn't keep up either (horse drawn and Eurail wasn't serving the Prussian Army then).

Von Kluck's turn!

I'm sure many others have mentioned it, but Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August is a wonderful, wonderful book.

[OpnDownfall]

The German Army in WW II was mostly a horse-drawn army. Only it's elite armored units were completly mechanized. The after battle pictures of the Falais Pocket, show dead horses all over the place and that was in 1944.

[Jamieva]

Yeah Moltke screwed up the plan. He never built in the logistics of getting that many men over those few roads in the time period allowed.

[OpnDownfall]

Von Kluck's turn was not the result of a problem in logistics. The problem (as others have noted) was in not adhereing to the original Schifflen Plan.
The German High Command lost it's nerve and allowed the 'tears of high born Junker ladies' and glory hunting Crown Princes, to deprive the Left Wing of Every man required by the careful calculations of the General Staff.

[5fish]

For the artillery fans World war one is your war. Artillery came of age during the Great War.

The Battle of Le Cateau stands out because before the war the was a disagreement among military experts. The disagreement as on the issue which was more effective direct artillery fire or indirect artillery fire...

The British military had gone with direct fire and developed the 18 pounder...


The German's had gone with indirect fire with thier 101 Howitzers and other size Howitzers too..


In he Battle of La Cateau direct fire and indirect fire theories squared off and indirect won the day....

The French and British had to race to catch up with the German in Howitzers....


The Battle of La Cateau resolve the issue.....which was more effective...

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members,

For me, personally -- World War I was so much like the Civil War in many ways. Like 30th_IL stated, the World War I was fought with the generals of the past 'generation,' and weapons that were 'ready' to grab once battles were approached. The same with our American Civil War; in looking at the early reports of 1861 before the Battle of Bull Run (First)/Manasass; some troups in Alexandria, were using 1818 weapons.

Even going forward into World War II, American military equipment was antique and war caused new creations in warfare, no different than the Civil War introduced new methods of warfare; e.g. Gatlin gun (first machine gun), use of railroads for equipment/troop movements; airborne observers and intelligence gathering; use of telegraph for military use and cryptic messages, in addition to the flag signal system.

In Viet Nam, my brother-in-law mentioned a lot of their equipment was from the Korean War.

Battlefields spawn creative inventions to improve the advantage in battle. Only on real battlefields can warfare, tools of war can really be tested.

I admit I am enjoying this thread on World War I, as it is a post Spanish-American War bridge into the more mechanical warfare, to which the Spanish-American War was a bridge from post Civil War warfare and 'lessons learned.'

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf