<cough> <cough>... there wouldn't be any aircraft or subs without the combustion engine. Just thought I'd better repeat it. 
Regards,
EoE
Regards,
EoE
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Re: he he
Well, my point being that smaller wars have erupted, but World War III, Communists and Capitalists never did. Without Nukes, there would have been no need (or fear to make) proxy wars like Korea, Vietnam, etc.
Without strategic nukes, there would have been a World War III on the scale and scope of World War II within a couple decades at the most. Thus, an armed world peace, without large-scale external, non-nationalistic wars.
Originally posted by HITO
lets say the 50 yers of peace in the civilised part of the world
Well, my point being that smaller wars have erupted, but World War III, Communists and Capitalists never did. Without Nukes, there would have been no need (or fear to make) proxy wars like Korea, Vietnam, etc.
Without strategic nukes, there would have been a World War III on the scale and scope of World War II within a couple decades at the most. Thus, an armed world peace, without large-scale external, non-nationalistic wars.
Not really. The range and speed of mounted infantry was also quite good. And compare the speed of Napoleons Army with the armies of WW2. The speed and mobility didn't increase much...
The Rifle.
It created the modern concept of the power of the defense, and the MG is simply a evolutionary development of the concept.
There is a reason the American Civil War is cosidered by many to be the first "modern" war.
Berkut
It created the modern concept of the power of the defense, and the MG is simply a evolutionary development of the concept.
There is a reason the American Civil War is cosidered by many to be the first "modern" war.
Berkut
Is the rifle not merely a development of the musket? Genuine question - I know next to bugger all about guns.
So? It was an innovation that changed the face of warfare. One can argue that things like helicopters, tanks, and paratroopers have all been simply responses to the ascendancy of the defence marked by the development of something as simple as a rifled barrel, and the attendant machine guns that came along with it.
Berkut
Yes, in anutshell that is the case. A rifle is simply a gun with rifling in the barrel to impart spin on the projectile.
Simple technology, massive (and largely unforseen) consequences.
Berkut
Poison gas changed warfare during WWI. Though it was limited due to the invention of the gas mask. Another thing towards the end of the war was the armored tank.
Not true. If we disregard mounted infantry - which we normally would call cavalry - the range and speed of infantry has always been set by the limits of the human body.
The combustion engine changed all that. You would never have had the breakthroughs and follow-ups of WW2 without it. Why else would the Germans have thought their Panzergrenadiers so precious?
Besides, as I mentioned: before the combustion engine we basically fought on a two-dimensional battlefield. With the introduction of aircraft and subs it changed to a true three-dimensional space. I am of course aware of height advantages etc., but that it neglible compared to a height/depth axis.
Regards,
EoE
Exactly, nothing revolutionary about that. Even in Napoleonic times defensive strength through fire power could be greater than the offensive one as witnessed by British action at Waterloo.
The rifle did not bring anything essentially new to warfare.
Regards,
EoE
I would also say the combustion engine, because of how quickly troops could move around. are you serious when you say the speed did not increase much between napoleon and ww2? it is quite renowned for its mobile warfare and the fact that german blitzkrieg tactics really took advantage of that extra speed gave the germans a nasty edge.
the early musket 1600 is as close to a rufle (ww2) as the musket was to a bow and arrow, through the years between those two dates the gun went through hundreds of advances, especially during the american civil war and napoleon times. sometimes just simple things like the design of the bullets that allowed them to be much easier to load hense a much higher rate of fire. early guns were as signifact as bow and arrows in some countries around 1600 because bow and arrows were easier to use.
Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Not do-able without an engine.
Regards,
EoE
actually not completely true, the blitzkrieg basically means using maximum possible force with maximum possible speed. I beleive napoleon used these tactics, the fact that hitlar used these first in modern warfare really shocked the rest of the world as to just how effective it could be, indeed imo the landing of normandy was somewhat inspired by the blitzkrieg tactics.
Nope. Maximum force with maximum speed is just another way to formulate Ye Olde 'concentration' - one of the pillars of war.
Blitzkrieg is all about protection through speed, ignorance of own flanks, and bypassing resistance by advancing through the weak areas of the enemy (you might even call that minimum force
)While I agree that Napoleon advanced with lightning speed compared to his adversaries, the strategic or tactical thinking behind that was not the same as behind the German concept of Blitzkrieg.
Anyway, even if it was, the failure of the Schlieffenplan in the opening stages of World War One, showed that even a Napoleonic style lightning war was next to impossible to pull off in the era of railroads without the combustion engine to speed up the range and mobility of infantry.
Regards,
EoE
The Napoleonic wars were fought with weapons that still required everyone to line up in rows at short range in order to amass firepower at a decisive level.
The rifle was directly responsible for trench warfare. No rifle, no trench warfare. The rifle saw the end of the cavalry as a viable military unit, and ushered in the modern age of warfare.
I refer you to "The Art of War in the Western World" as a resource. One of the finest systemic studies of warfare ever written.
I think the question is what single innovation changed warfare the most in the last 150 years. The rifle might be a simple evolution of the musket, but its effect certainly revolutionized warfare, and that effect is *still* being felt today.
To really understand the difference between a rifle and a musket, think about this:
A modern assault rifle is a smaller step up from a civil war rifle than the civil war rifle was from a Napoleonic musket.
Berkut