Anybody here well-read on the Great War & want to discuss it?

[uk 75]

As my interest in WW1 is purely strategic and military rather than political. For those interested Wiki is pretty detailed

Treaty of London (1839) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This thread is in danger of getting too political. Discussions for example on Africa and the Middle East have no relevance to secret and unbuilt projects

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

As my interest in WW1 is purely strategic and military rather than political. For those interested Wiki is pretty detailed

Treaty of London (1839) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This thread is in danger of getting too political. Discussions for example on Africa and the Middle East have no relevance to secret and unbuilt projects

Apologies! Not intending to steer this to politics, I put this thread in the Bar just to discuss the war. I thought the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration was a interesting topic for WW1.

 

[Antonio]

I thought the Sykes-Picot Agreement / Balfour Declaration was a interesting topic for WW1.

And, in fact it is. As most of the information you're posting here. It is highly interesting to me. In fact I'm using it as a guide to learn more about the subject. Thank you very much.
But the truth, as uk 75 points out, is that we're going off-topic and into politics. The causes of WWI involve many political factors. We better try to stay on technology.

 

[Hood]

2-You will lose the barrage because it took millions of shells to keep it going, and that was not sustainable more than a few days;

7-Because your logistics now have to cross a couple dozen kilometers of smashed defensive lines... turned into a hellscape of craters, soon to be an ocean of mud.

That being said, if logistics and technology are to blame for the stalemate of the Western Front, why then was the Eastern Front so fluid in your opinion?

The problem was over-reliance on artillery and poor tactical usage of it.
There were equally heavy - if not heavier - barrages in WW2 using artillery and massed heavy bombers, but there were of much shorter duration against known military targets. Trying to blast strands of barbed wire and hit comparatively small target profiles a wide as a trench was pointless with primitive aerial observation. To compound that by thinking "if we bombard for a week or two we are sure to hit something" was madness. And of course long barrages were highlighting where the attack was and when it would take place.

The Eastern Front had less concentrations of artillery and therefore tended to be more fluid.

Churning out millions (billions?) of shells was a complete waste of resources.

 

[Archibald]

@Hood : spot on.

And of course long barrages were highlighting where the attack was and when it would take place.

This. Look, another absurdity to throw on the WWI pile ! The british did it at the Somme, the Germans at Verdun, the French at Chemin-des-dames. And as you say - a) the ennemy got the message - sigh, facepalm - b) moved a safe distance away from the barrage max range, c) reinforced its line of defense there, and d) just waited for the exhausted offensive to come dying in front of them.

WWI was a murderous game of fools.

 

[Antonio]

Could it be considered that due to a combination of technological confluence of some mature but other still immature tech that resulted in lack of stretegy. Sort of evil perfect storm ?