Why was WWII different than WWI?

Mark Conley

Mark Conley

Active member
It was the same land...just about the same opposing armies...almost the same technology (planes, tanks machine guns) yet the war in europe during the first world war turned into a slugfest for mud...and the Germans totally over ran the allies in the first weeks of WWII.

What was the difference?

This is a topic to talk about those differences. Lets see if we can come to some common point as to what made both wars different.


The topics here. Im just going to sit back and let you people do the work... :D
 
Well, the technology was still there in WWII, but different, for example,

Tanks were now used effectively as offensive weapon as opposed to support, they also were armed with a main weapon of a cannon, as opposed to a machine gun.

Sub machine guns were much more common in WWII, which would greatly act against trench warfare, because of quick movement, and tactics that could be used with a SMG, as opposed to a bolt action rifle.

Basically, World War One was a war fought with modern weapons, but with 19th century tactics.
 
In the West, the balance of forces in 1914 was close enough that stalemate ensued. In 1940 the Wehrmacht moved too fast for the French to stabilize the front, and in 1944 it was too weak to stop the Allies. In the East the spaces were too large, so the war stayed mobile, as it was in WW1. In Italy, however, the war was about as static as it was anywhere in WW1, slow slogging from one defense line to the next.
 
While I agree that WWI was fought with modern weapons and antiquated tactics (same as the US Civil War - more accurate arms, outdated tactics), I think there's a major component missing.

Airpower.

Carpet bombing, dive bombing, close air support. Cities were more vulnerable in the rear, forcing militaries to defend their rear and neccessarily spreading their defenses.

I also think the improvement of tanks was important. Speed, armor, range, firepower, all improved.
 
Whe I read Achtung Panzer by Guderian I couldn't help noticing that one of the nreasons behind the concept of Blitzkrieg was to avoid another WW1

The Germans at that time (unlike in WW1) couldn't stay in constant combat for more than 6 months or they would run out of oil. At at that time the Romanians and Hungarians hadn't yet joined the Axis thus providing continous oil suply.

As for tanks - they hadn't joined WW1 for 2 years and even than they were only tractors with some "aluminum foil" :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I think, that the morals of the German soldiers where sky-high at the start of WWII because one man (Adolf Hitler) promised a entire nation that Germany would rise to wealth and power again, after the big depression after the lose of WWI.
 
The Axis Powers has adapted their military strategies to account for the new technologies available. Guderian was not the only person who thought of the idea of massing the tanks and slamming them into the enemy line at a single point (and making stationary trench warfare obsolete). The general idea was there in most countries, but those persons were not listened to. Granted, Guderian went into the concept in much greater depth, but the officers in the Allied powers who promoted the idea were scorned by (generally higher ranking) military traditionalists.

Because Hitler was willing to subscribe to new ideas he supported Guderian. He was outnumbered on all fronts and he knew it. And so, in Germany, the concept was not only allowed to grow, but in depth training was allowed to occur. So there you have your biggest ingredient in Germany's Blitzkrieg. The rest of the military concepts go the same way. Rethink Airfoce, rethink U-Boats, rethink everything.

From there, you needed a man like Adolf Hitler who was crazy enough to attack when vastly outnumbered. Then your military geniuses had to figure out how to make it happen. Then Hitler mucks with things cripples their ability to actually win, etc, etc, etc.

The Allies started out expecting trench warware and planned their entire strategy based upon it.

One interesting strategy that was heavily believed in that didn't work in WW2 was the concept of bombing the enemy into submission. Germany failed to do so and the US and UK failed to do so (vs Japan and Germany both). The idea never has worked in history that I'm aware of.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
...One interesting strategy that was heavily believed in that didn't work in WW2 was the concept of bombing the enemy into submission. Germany failed to do so and the US and UK failed to do so (vs Japan and Germany both). The idea never has worked in history that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...


I have to make a response in this vien: the object is never to try and bomb your enemy into submission (although they did give it a round the clock go in hanoi during Viet nam): its to try and deny you enemy his needed supplies, goods or what ever at certain points in your caimpain. If the object at polesti was to bomb it into submission, they would have followed up the inital bombing with proceedingly more and more bombings...but they didnt. They bombed swinefurt, the ball bearing factory of germany...once. Sure, they sent over lots of bombers...but it usally was to take out one or two of the more important areas for a short time..to deny the product for just a short while. most allied planners knew you couldnt drop enough bombs to bomb them into submission: they were not fools.

with japan, bombs went out the window...low level incendary drops was much more effective. and yes, it was very effective: in tokoyo alone, 70 percent of the city was reduced to ash.
 
The concept was to bomb the opponent into submission, ie winning a war SOLEY on air attacks. The idea was that this could be used to avoid revisitting the horrors of WW1 and trench warfare by bombing them till they gave up the fight. Collatoral damage was supposed to eventually lead to their surrender. While numerous creative means for inducing collateral damage were tried (Tokyo, Dresden, etc), the concept didn't work. Though it didn't exactly boost the morale of the citizens, in many cases it strengthened their resolve. Attacking civilian targets was the biggest mistake by Germany during the Battle of Britain.

Now what I'm talking about was a very real military theory.

Other justifications for the idea of winning by air power alone: Attacking enemy industrial sites? Didn't work very well because the factories were just rebuilt deep enough underground that they couldn't be hit anymore. The truly effective tactic of hitting things like oil supplies weren't tried until very late in the war BECAUSE OF the theory of victory by air alone.

The one notable exception is the Atomic Bomb, simply because that method confronted the Japanese with the choice: Surrender now or be nuked off the face of the Earth.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
BmrSooner451 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
ww1 or ww2

BmrSooner451 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top