Tag Info

New answers tagged

2

When all is said and done though, with the advent of accurate and more deadly weapons across the war fighting spectrum, movement was the key to survival. Also completely wrong. Throughout WW2 well dug-in defending troops had a large advantage over mobile ones - something like a 3 to 1 firepower advantage was required for attacks to succeed. Fixed defenses ...


2

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. This is complete nonsense. The Stormtroopers were not effective (hint: the Germans LOST the war!) What happened was that (see my previous answer) the Germans stopped trying to make holes in the enemy lines through which logistics could pass and instead had the ...


3

Re. Blitzkrieg: this is History Channel nonsense. Read the German Army's own analysis, "Legend Of Blitzkrieg" - http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/blitzkrieg-legend - which would probably have been called MYTH of Blitzkrieg, but the title was already taken. The rapid fall of France was due not to firepower concentration and mobility but to several low ...


3

Germany Invented the "Storm Trooper" This is the reason that trench warfare ended in 1918. They were desperate for a new tactic and left the trenches behind. Storm Troopers were poised on critical offensive goals that would have detrimental effect on enemy positions. Therefore abandoning the defensive trench strategy. It had nothing directly related to ...


11

No, tanks are not, evolving strategy for using new technology was. A quick look at the Principles of War as espoused in many military doctrines over time and across the globe (and usually posited as timeless) shows a focus on how to achieve a goal. A few key points among these lists are maneuver and initiative. In other words, warfare is about getting ...


3

Toward the end of the war, both sides (but more to the German side) were finding that defense in depth gave them the best option to reserve man power. Rather than a static line of defense, it used a mixture of strong points and pretargeted artillery killing fields. Let the other side attack, defense takes losses and pulls back to the next defensive strong ...


27

Yet another concurring (tanks were important, but not the only reason), but different, answer. Already at the end of WWI, the tactics for trench assault had improved. Instead of just swarming enemy trenches with infantry, weak points were exploited and strongholds bypassed. The role and nature of artillery support also changed. The barrages that lasted ...


2

This definition of "Blitzkrieg" explains the reason for the abandonment of trench warfare. "Blitzkrieg is a German term describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations, and heavily backed up by close air support, forces a breakthrough into the enemy's ...


6

I agree with Alex, I would add up a big point, I wanted to comment it, but it became bigger. Appearance of mass parachute also made trech warfare useless. In the time when the enemy could cross only through the sea and trenches they didn't expect double front battle from trenches, but when it was possible to parachute troops beyond the trenches there were ...


7

Tanks were an important factor but not the only one. Among other factors are: Increased mobility (automobile transport, self-propelled artillery). This made possible large encirclement operations which were so common in WWII. The front can be broken in weak points and entrenched troops can be cut off. Second. Aviation is not just "another kind of ...



Top 50 recent answers are included