Deleted member 1487
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attaque_à_outrance
What if WW1 was delayed into the 1920s or 30s and without the experience of WW1 in 1914 the French continued to develop the idea of the Attaque à Outrance, but with motorization, SP artillery, and automatic weaponry? Would it be a more viable battle doctrine with the right weaponry and technology to support it on the attack or would it just lead to disaster against a better armed defender?This philosophy was a response to the increasing weight of defensive firepower that accrued to armies in the nineteenth century, as a result of several technological innovations, notably breech-loading rifled guns, machine guns, and light field artillery firing high-explosive shells. It held that the victor would be the side with the strongest will, courage, and dash (élan), and that every attack must therefore be pushed to the limit.[1] The invention of machine guns and barbed wire as well as the subsequent development of trench warfare rendered this tactic extremely costly and usually ineffective.