Ignorance mostly, ignorance fueledShort Answer:
Because the military leaders of both sides informed by historical precedent blind to recent changes in technology and tactics. Ignorance which was only overcome from severalhundreds of years of costly losses trying to attack entrenched machine guns with infantry athard learned experience believed that offense was always superior than defense. It was called the beginning of WWIcult of offense.
Why attack a chariot column on foot? Why confront an army wielding iron swords when all you have is bronze knives? Why would armored Calvery charge So entrenched archers across a muddy stream? Why would people try to climb midivil castle walls? Why didwas the United Statesmilitary leadership in 1941 bottle their entire Pacific fleet up at Pearl Harborthe belief in offense even knowing an attack byas massive casualties piled up they were equated to cult like followers to the Japanesephilosophy. The reason for this loyalty to offense was imminent?
Battle of the River Amnias
.
(89 BC between Mithradates VI of Pontus and Nicomedes IV of Bithynia during the First Mithridatic War.)
.
The turning point of the battle occurred when the Scythed chariots led by Archelaus dived into Nicomedes army. According to Appian, the chariots caused wounds of such a hideous nature that they caused fear and confusion among Nicomede’s troops, "...cutting some of them in two, and tearing others to pieces." So horrified was the army at the spectacle of men being cut in half while still breathing or their mangled bodies hanging in parts on the scythes that, "overcome rather by the hideousness of the spectacle than by the loss of the fight, fear took possession of their ranks"."3 This gave Neoptolemus time to regroup and attack what was now the rear of Nicomedes' army. Even though Archelaus and Neoptolemus now had the clear advantage, the battle did not end until Neoptolemus had lost most of entire army.
for several centuries history taught that troops on the offense always inflicted more damage than troops on defense. That the only reasonable defense was counter attack. Only technology changed and now due to improvements in fire arms ( wide use of riffles rather than muskets, and most importantly in WWI the wide use of the machine gun), fortified defenses now rather than offense had the advantage.
History of the Cannon
Another notable effect of cannon on warfare during this period was the change in conventional fortifications. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, "There is no wall, whatever its thickness that artillery will not destroy in only a few days.
Longer Answer:
Experience and study of the military arts blinded military leadership to what they were experiencing. Recent changes in technology and tactics had made offensives in the fashion militaries were used to conducting unacceptable costly. It took several years of costly losses trying to attack entrenched machine guns with infantry to learn the lesson that military truisms which went back before the Napoleonic Wars were no longer valid.
History which generally guides military practices (learn from previous mistakes) is always blind to the latest innovations or tactics.
> **[Pearl Harbor, Thunderfish from the sky ][14]**On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan proved that it had mastered shallow-water torpedo strikes. After the attack, a shocked U.S. Navy examined the remnants of Japanese torpedoes. They saw that the dropped torpedoes had big wooden fins at the back of their tail cones. These big wooden fins, which were fitted over smaller metal fins, broke off when the torpedo hit the water. The Navy also saw that there were two smaller fins near the front of the tail cones. These were again made of metal covered with wooden gloves that snapped off at water entry.>In Congressional hearings on Pearl Harbor, Adm. Kimmel called the big fins “a device which all the brains in our own Navy Department, who had been seeking such a solution, had been unable to arrive at.” Worse, during WWI historical precedent informed commanders offense was the quickest path to victory. Although already proven wrong in the British Crimean War and American Civil War; conventional wisdom (see Cult of the Offensive) in WWI was offense and massed infantry would overwhelm defensive formations. In the US Civil war and Crimean war conventional wisdom did not account for the Minié ball. In WWI conventional wisdom did not account for the machine gun.
The Pearl Harbor takeaway is not the mistaken American belief that the large tail fins were the Japanese innovation which allowed them to successfully attack the American Fleet at Pearl. The takeaway is that while the American Harbor was very shallow and conventional wisdom informed this shallowness protected the fleet from torpedo attacks while at anchor. The Japanese engineers had overcome the shallow dive problem. Thus while the Americans and conventional wisdom said the American fleet was safe at anchor, recent technological advances proved otherwise.
The answer to all these questions is because they didn't know any better.Because history which generally guides military practices(learn from previous mistakes) is always blind to the latest innovations or tactics. Worse, during WWI historical precedent informed commanders offense was the quickest path to victory. Although already proven wrong in the British Crimean War and American Civil War; conventional wisdom(see [Cult of the Offensive][7]) in WWI was offense and massed infantry would overwhelm defensive formations. In the US Civil war and Crimean war conventional wisdom did not account for the Minié ball. In WWI conventional wisdom did not account for the machine gun. During WWII with the advent of new tactics using massed armor this paradigm of offense having the advantage over defense would again exert itself General George Patton would say "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." Because in WWII this became true again.
We are still going through this pattern today where for a time offense has the advantage and then due to technological advances and new tactics defense has the advantage... In 2006 the Israeli's fought Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel used the tried and true Armor attack supported by air superiority, artillery and infantry. Basically the same tactics Germans used against France and the same tactics Norman Schwarzkopf used against Saddam. Only in 2006 Hezbollah had an answer. Pre fortified tunnels, sophisticated American and Russian anti tank and anti personal missiles. First defeat in Israel's short history of overwhelming militaries victories.. or at least the first time any Israeli Army has left the enemy in the field and retired.
