men fought men because machines were now involved, is also the reason why the western
front was static for so long. This was displayed by their attempts at cavalry charges
against heavy artillery, and their numerous attempts at sending men over the top to face
machine guns. This tatic of attacking by using men and horses alone against powerful
machine guns had no hope of success in pushing forward and breaking the stalemate. The
lack of efficient attacking machines with which thus to push forward made it much easier
to defend than to attack resulting in static. The reason this offensive technology was so
long in being developed lies in the fact that two hurdles had to be overcome first; the
mindset of the Genarals, and the time involved to develop to perfection new technology.
The first of these illustrated by the following words of Haig in 1916 ''I belive that the
value of the horses and the opportunity for the horse in the furture are likely to be as great
as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories. Which not only implies an adherence
to outdated methods of warfare but also a reluctance to use any new weapons. The second
is illustrated by the problems with the new attacking technology.For example the tank
they were slow and prone to mechanical breakdown.
Is it true to say that there was no change in warfare in this period?
Although there was much change in warfare in the course of this period, there was
also some contiunity, and both are to be investigated. However, it is vitally important that
it firstly be noted that this war did indeed mark a striking change in warfare, it was as the
title suggests the first ever, world war.
The advancements made in weaponry, although many were in their foetal stages,
were a major element in the change in the nature of warfare in this period. Their use on
the Western front was not only a change in itself but it also changed the nature of warfare
more fundamentally as it meant that warfare was no longer just about men fighting men,
but technology was now a vitally important factor. An important example of this new
technology is the powerful machines guns introduced by the Germans which could kill
rows of advancing men. This is supported by the words of a German gunner at the Battle
of the Somme, 'when we started firing they went down in their hundreds.' In 1918 these
machines guns were made portable. Tanks and aeroplanes, even if both only reached the
early stages of their developemnt and were largely not used to the full extent of their
capabilities, are further examples of such new technology. Planes, for example even
though they were largely only used for reconnaisance missions signalled the dawning of a
new age of warfare. This was because it took warfare into a whole new dimension, the
skies. Poison gas, first used by the Germans in 1915, also signalled a great change in the
nature of warfare, as it was the beginning of the use of chemicals in warfare.
Another important change in the course of this period was in the sphere of tactics.
The fundemenal change here was that instead of relying on the sheer force of artillery
bombardments, both sides came to realise that they must target the use of artillery. An
example is the change from an artillery barrage to a creeping barrage. They also
introduced a more scientific appraoch to artillery by calculating trajectory.
The third major change was that virtually the whole population of both sides were
involved in warfare. The First World War introduced widespread conscription for the first
time. This war also involved the people at home to an extent that previous wars had not;
many families lost a memeber due to the huge number of casulties on the Western front,
and they had to endure rationing, censorship and many women even went to work in
munitions factories.
However, there was also continuity. The very nature of warfare, at its core,
remained the same. At least one side in this war ,and in previous wars, believed they were
capable of a swift victory with little cost to themselves. This was also a war fought for
and on land, with territory gain being the mark of success, again a similarity between it
and previous wars. Finally, the leaders were also still chosen via class with no idea of a
meritocracy.
What had changed in 1918?
There were arguably three main areas that changed in 1918, broke the stalemate,
hence brought about the end of the war. These include; tactics, morale and technology.
The change in tactics in 1918 led to a re-introduction of speed and rapidity into
offensive action and was a key reason for the the breaking of the stalemate. The Germans,
even if their attempt ultimately failed, were the first to do so in the March 1918 attack
launched by Ludendorff. An important reason behind this change of approach to the
Western front was the elimiation of the need to focus on the eastern as well. This was
because the Russians had signed the armistice in December 1917. The new tactics behind
this German offensive involved attacking several points at once and moving when they
met resistance, the use of cover such as fog and the use of specifically trained shock
troops to open the attack. The allies too adopted new tactics in July 1918 and these also
relied on a series of rapid blows. They also introduced a new tactic of properly uniting
their forces under one supreme commander, Foch.
The morale of both sides changed dramatically in 1918 and morale is a vitally
important factor in warfare. The Germans morale was broken by September not only
because the British blockade was causing suffering on the 'Home Front' but also because
the German spring offensive had failed whilst the allies counter-attack was proving more
successful. The morale of the allies was obviously high as a result of this success. The
fact that the Americans had entered the war on their side, as well as providing the
practical support for the 1918 offensive at the rate of 300,000 men a month, must also
have served to boost the morale of the allies in 1918.
The final change in 1918 was the successful exploitation of the further improved
offensive war technology. This was not only a change in itself but it perhaps also suggests
that the millitary mindset had changed and it had finally been realised that it was of little
use just using men to face machines, offensive machines needed to be used. The British
counter attack in 1918 involved the use of 450 tanks to lead the infantry through the
barbed wire, tanks that were now more reliable.
