|
|
|
|
|
|
by duncanawoods
1773 days ago
|
|
|
Given the Ludendorff offensive failed I don't think you can call stormtroopers alone a solution. High casualties, outrunning supply and obtaining territory that is hard to defend which weakens your overall position. I don't agree that tanks had reached some ineffective impasse. Quoting wikipedia: > By 1918, tank capabilities and tactics improved, their numbers increased and, combined with French tanks, finally helped break the stalemate. During the last 100 days of the war, Allied forces harried the Germans back using infantry supported by tanks and by close air support. By the war's end, tanks become a significant element of warfare; the proposed British Plan 1919 would have employed tanks as a primary factor in military strategy. However, the impact of tanks in World War I was less than it could have been, due to their late introduction and the inherent issues that plague implementing revolutionary technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare Plan 1919 was going to use 30,000 new faster tanks. |
|
|
He's saying that tanks became less effective during WW2, at first offense was overpowering defense thanks to tanks, airplanes and improved logistics. During WW2 defense started getting closer to offense, at least on land (air power improved greatly and it was the thing which facilitated all major offensives).
For example during the Battle of Kursk German tanks couldn't break through the Soviet defense because they didn't have air superiority. The Soviets (and almost everyone else) had learned by that point how to organize an effective anti-tank defense.