answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Yes. The proof is in the fact that nowhere did the second war see long term stalemate and the accompanying development of elaborate trench systems. The state of development of war technology at the time of The Great War gave a large edge to the defensive. Though "new" ideas were tried, such as massive undermining of enemy trenches, gas attacks, early tanks, and the "Brusilov"-style offensive, none proved capable of producing a true strategic breakthrough into open country. The tank might have, if their employment was delayed until more of them were available (and if they were more mechanically reliable). One thing that also might have worked would have been to outflank the trench lines by an amphibious attack, but none of the combatants had the capacity to do so, or tried to develop any. The Gallipoli landings were done just as landings had been done for several centuries, using the ships' boats from the invasion armada, and it was fortunate they were unopposed. WWII saw the elaborate development of technology and tactics for amphibious assaults, making the most difficult operation in war up to that time an almost complete success. For instance, years and effort involving millions of man hours and millions of treasure were expended on the beach defenses of Europe, and come the Normandy landings, these were breached in a day. Part of that success was due to another new wrinkle, "vertical envelopment", using airborne and glider-borne troops. New fire control procedures utilizing light weight radios and trained forward observers allowed precise, meaningful naval artillery support on landing, and later, similar systems provided accurate artillery fire in support of troops, and also close coordination of tactical air support. The artillery had not been capable in most cases of precise fire since the days when it ceased to be a line of sight weapon in the years just after the American Civil War, but for WWII, artillery was again aimed at specific targets of opportunity. The US Field Artillery pioneered a new tactic, still used today, called "TOT" - "Time On Target", where every tube within range of a given target fires in a coordinated manner so that ALL their shells arrive on the target at the same instant. Very demoralizing. Tanks were much improved, along with other armored and mechanized weapons, and were now capable of delivering strategic breakthroughs. There was not universal agreement at start of WWII on the proper use for tanks - massed for breakthroughs, as the Germans did in 1940? Or dispersed widely to support the infantry, as traditionalists argued, the problems with which the French likewise demonstrated in 1940? The US Army, in the end, did both, with armored divisions for breakthroughs and exploitations, and independent tank battalions to support infantry divisions. All these things gave the edge on the battlefield back to the offensive, but in order to gain the maximum benefit from them proper employment of these new possibilities was required, to gain the maximum advantage, and this was demonstrated by the officers of all the major combatants except the Japanese and the Italians.

User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Were World War 2 tactics actually better than World War 1?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Why do you use tactics?

Why do I use tactics? Well, because tactics are better than brute force.


Is Hull fc better than Hull kr?

yes hull fc are way better than hull kr. fc have a better stadium better players and they have better tactics than kr


Why FM radio is better than am radio?

Actually, AM is better than FM. AM can cover the world, and is the best form of communication. FM is completely worthless except for the fact that it's better sounding.


Why was it so easy for the Romans to control Britain?

Because the Romans had better tactics,better army,better equipment than the Celts(British). This means they won lots of battles.


Is Canada better than US?

no actually heck no no actually heck no no actually heck no


Sentences using actually?

I actually think that dogs are better than cats.


Are world industries better than baker techdecks?

Yes world industries are better than baker


Who were the best Egyptians Greeks or Romans?

The Romans had a better organised army with better formations, The Greeks were more learned with better weapons and tactics, and the Egyptians were harsh rulers making the soldirs more afraid of them than the enemy.Romans are better than the egytains and Greeks that's why they conqued them.


Are tortillas consider a bread?

I actually can not answer this question for you it is is actually your choice if it it better than corn chips or not>


Is Habbo better then ourworld?

no, habbo is not better than our world


Who is the best in Pawn Tactics?

Strikingfury is the best player in Pawn Tactics.I mean there's no one better than him he is so great he can own people in deathmatches when being outnumbered.So yeah,he is the grand master and the best Pawn Tactics will ever have!


Is Silk Road Online better than World of Warcraft?

No, World of Warcraft is infinitely times better than lol, SRO.