No: WW1= What military tactics?

world war one can be seen to be the birth of trench warfare, tanks, large scale gas warfare........

what would military tactics look like without a WW1?
 
With the advent of machine gun corps in most major military's, the cavalry would still be rendered obsolete though without the experience of the Great War, members of the old guard would probably be able to justify its continued existence.

The armored car, would become the primary source of "armored" warfare, until a conflict or emergency, necessitated the construction of modern tanks.

Chemical warfare would become a necessary staple of both national defense, and it would continue to be viewed as an essential battlefield instrument.

Overall, 19th Century thinking would prevail among the officer corps, until a large scale conflict arises and change becomes a necessity.
 
Most of the relevant tactical theoretical framework for modern warfare already existed in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War. As Antulio Echevarria showed in his phenomenal After Clausewitz, modern infantry tactics basically are the tactics that Germany, the UK, the US, France, and even Russia had already conceived in the prewar era: the use of the open order, development of adequate fire support from infantry weapons and artillery, employment of counterfortifications, even specifics in artillery management like the balance of counterbattery fire and preparatory/infantry support fire. These appeared in well-read contemporary military journals and even in national infantry regulations.

The problem during the war was that the soldiers and officers of none of these armies were adequately trained in these tactics. An example from the war Echevarria used was a German assault across open terrain on the town of Gerdauen on 09SEP1914, held by Russian troops of equal strength in prepared positions. With proper tactics nearly indistinguishable from modern infantry assault schemes, the 43rd Infantry Brigade drove the Russians out of the town with some 2% casualties. Its sister brigade, attacking on its flank against a different position, was organized in close order and densely packed columns, and was horribly mauled.
 
world war one can be seen to be the birth of trench warfare, tanks, large scale gas warfare........

what would military tactics look like without a WW1?

Trench warfare existed in the Crimean war, American civil war, Boer war and Russo-Japanese war. Generals knew all about them. Their armies did have shovels. In the Boer war the British had even used a creeping barrage against entrenched Boers.

Gas warfare on a significant scale proved to be a one off.


Tactics would develop along normal lines with Generals and strategists looking at each new war and seeing if there were lessons to be learned.

Remember that in 1914 the German army had the least combat experience of the belligerents. It didn't seem to limit them too much.
 

Cook

Banned
Chemical warfare would become a necessary staple of both national defense, and it would continue to be viewed as an essential battlefield instrument.
The use of poison gas was outlawed at the Hague Convention of 1899*, without the appalling casualties and stalemate of the Western Front it is unlikely any country would have considered using them.

*The motion to outlaw them was unanimous save for the representative of the United States who voted against.
 
Overall, 19th Century thinking would prevail among the officer corps, until a large scale conflict arises and change becomes a necessity.

Even with out WW1, the tactics of say 1925 would look nothing like 1914. 19th century thinking was tied to:
- The "everyman a citizen, every citizen a soldier concept" (armies of millions, only recsources to train most in napoleonic style)
and
-the largely non mechanized world that existed prior to 1914.

If either of these two things changed, and the non mechanized world was going to change quickly, then military thinking was going to change just as quickly.
 
Also the impact of aircraft on the 'modern' battlefield would, no doubt, be underappreciated until seen in action.
The same for submarines although they seem to get quite a lot of attention prior to WW1 but as extensions to teh battlefleet and not commerce raiders - Perhaps more of the monitor types and K-class types, perhaps even aircraft carrying (seems a bit like the IJN sub's of WW2).

Artillery improved hugely also - hyper sensitive detonators (hitting barbed wire was enough), massed 'orchestrated' box barrages, spotting capabilities all would be delayed or even missed.

Potentially for a period perhaps even fleets of airships 'capable' of air to air combat
 
Top