Why was WWII different than WWI? - Page 2


Read more about Remember, IN WW1 the Schlieffen Plan was not successful, because of the lack of communication. Where as the attack on France in WW2 (which basicaly the Schlieffen Plan) w

Military Medals Store

  International Military Forums > >

User Name
Password

 
August 12th, 2004   #11
BmrSooner451
 
Remember, IN WW1 the Schlieffen Plan was not successful, because of the lack of communication. Where as the attack on France in WW2 (which basicaly the Schlieffen Plan) was successful because of mechanized warfare. Troops wern't exhausted once they reached the "outskirts" of Paris, and the communication between the different German armies was MUCH MUCH better.
 
-
August 12th, 2004   #12
silent driller
 
 
I kind of agree with the new technogoly/ old tactics theory. In WWI, there was the airplane, the machine gun, the airplane mounted machine gun, the tank(eventually) and the hand . But there was also the outdated concept of armies facing each other on a field and blowing up their pieces of mud. And the French lasted throughout the war.

In WWII, there was the airplane, the machine gun, the airplane mounted machine gun, the tank, the hand and radar. And Germany had the Blitz strategy. Now there were new tactics like blowing up factories and rolling tank columns through cities. There were specialized aircraft for fighting other aircraft and others for ing the ground. Soldiers fought urban warfare and Marines fought jungle warfare. There were amphibious assaults and shore ardments from over the horizon. And the French didn't last long at all because there was nobody left to fight from WWI which was less than 20 years earlier.


Whatever was sufficient to get us to this point is insufficient to get us any further.
 
August 12th, 2004   #13
godofthunder9010
 
 
One cool stat is the fact that both France and Russia had more tanks than Germany at the time of invasion, but Germany knew how to use theirs better. They never had an overwhelming advantage in the air in terms of numbers, but most often did better with what they had. Before anyone states the obvious, yeah I know, the Battle of Britain is a big exception.
 
August 13th, 2004   #14
GuyontheRight
 
Mark, are you taking the AP Modern European Hisotry exam, cause I swear there was an essey about this one


No Voice
 
August 18th, 2004   #15
SLR owner
 
a political answer to the question is that the differences were there was no real instigator to WW1 , it happened through a random series of events(though Germany was made to take blame for it) , there were very certain instigator/s in WW2. Militarily , WW1 was fought as a static battle from both sides , where in WW2 Germany introduced a new type of warfare.
 
August 19th, 2004   #16
godofthunder9010
 
 
Probably should be stated that (from the Allies perspective), WW1 was fought for all the wrong reasons, WW2 was fought for all the right reasons. The Axis Powers of WW2 were more driven because they had greater motivation. In Germany's case, revenge. Japan and Italy were out to achieve greatness and power that they felt had been withheld from them.
 
August 19th, 2004   #17
yurry
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BmrSooner451
Remember, IN WW1 the Schlieffen Plan was not successful, because of the lack of communication. Where as the attack on France in WW2 (which basicaly the Schlieffen Plan) was successful because of mechanized warfare. Troops wern't exhausted once they reached the "outskirts" of Paris, and the communication between the different German armies was MUCH MUCH better.
Actualy the Schlieffen was a decoy - the Germans knew the Allies were expecting another atempt through Belgum. Then the main strike was delivered through the Ardenes. And we all know what happened next.

Also in WW1 France was prepared to defend Paris as in WW2 it was declared an open City!
 
August 19th, 2004   #18
bush musketeer
 
 

ww1 or ww2 info


Quote:
Originally Posted by BmrSooner451
Remember, IN WW1 the Schlieffen Plan was not successful, because of the lack of communication. Where as the attack on France in WW2 (which basicaly the Schlieffen Plan) was successful because of mechanized warfare. Troops wern't exhausted once they reached the "outskirts" of Paris, and the communication between the different German armies was MUCH MUCH better.

the schlieffen plan failed because of britains so called contemptible little army which fought the germans very well at places like mons,nery and le cataeu.

i think air power was probably the biggest difference in the two wars. and the reliance on motorised tansport in many areas in ww2.


Although our task was never easy, it was made less difficult by the patriotism and passionate valour of the Australians, Which served as an example to the whole world, you saved Amiens, you saved France.
Feild Marshal Ferdinand Foch 1918
 
August 20th, 2004   #19
godofthunder9010
 
 
Bear in mind that the Shlieffen Plan also failed because the Germans were stupid enough to send Ludendorf and Hindenburg and their respective Divisions to the East before the "Quick Knockout Victory" had been achieved. Would it have been enough to take Paris? We'll never know. Also, it would remove the Battle of Tannenburg from history certainly, but the real question is, would the Schlieffen have succeeded with just a little more manpower? Would it be enough to get France to capitulate prior to the whole thing goes to the trenches? (Ultimately, I have a lot less problem with Germany winning WW1 than WW2.)
 
August 20th, 2004   #20
Doppleganger
 
 
The difference can really be summed up in one word:

Blitzkrieg.

By 1945 every major combatant in WW2 had adopted it.

And you have 2 men to thank for it. Guderian for having the foresight to take the basic ideas and develop and nurture and put it into real practice and Hitler for having the foresight to realise that here was a concept that could realise his ambitions and his dreams.

Hitler in some ways was just as foresighted a genius as Guderian was.
 



Tags
talk, topic, war, work, wwii