What single innovation changed warefare more than any other? (1850+)

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut

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.

The end of cavalry as a viable military unit? Tell that to Sherman. Or the Ulans. Or World War One cavalry on the Eastern Front, Soviet cavalry in the Russian civil war, or the same cavalry (along with Rumanian) during World War Two.

The real problem of course arises if you maintain that the rifle - as used in the civil war - really changed warfare, since the tactics and formations employed during the battles were no different than the ones used in Napoleonic times. True, the US Civil War saw trenches, but trenches are not an invention of that war nor an effect of the rifle. Trenches are as old as war itself.

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.

Never heard about it. Who's the author? And does he really say that the rifle was the single innovation that changed warfare the most between 1850 and now. I must admit that I doubt it.

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.

I guess this is where I could argue, that we are not talking evolutions but innovations, but I won't Obviously I am not saying that effect isn't felt, but IMHO other things are far, far more important.

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.

To really understand the difference between a rifle and a musket, I prefer to look at rate of fire, range, accuracy, the effect on tactical use and the effect that might have on the strategic level.

And IMHO the immediate effect of the rifle wasn't greater than so many other gunpowder improvements. It had an increased accucary - and therefore range - but that's about it. You could just as well have used the flintlock as an example of a revolution.

Maybe the confusion stems from the fact, that I am unsure what you mean by "the rifle". Are we talking the real meaning: a rifled barrel, or are we talking zillions of other small improvements like breachloading, magasines etc.?

Regards,

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


The end of cavalry as a viable military unit? Tell that to Sherman. Or the Ulans. Or World War One cavalry on the Eastern Front, Soviet cavalry in the Russian civil war, or the same cavalry (along with Rumanian) during World War Two.

Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.

Yeah, it was still used, but then so where battleships long after aircraft carriers made them obsolete.

f I could, I would tell that to all those poor bastards who got blown away trying to attack Panzers with their lances.

The real problem of course arises if you maintain that the rifle - as used in the civil war - really changed warfare, since the tactics and formations employed during the battles were no different than the ones used in Napoleonic times.

Huh?

The tactics changed *drastically* during the ACW. The fact that they hadn't yet changed at the beginning, or even in some instances by the middle, is why the death toll in some single battles was so horrific. Massing men up and amrching them into rifle fire was devastating in its effect. That you would say that the tactics ahd not changed is rather stunning to me. Have you ever done any real study of Civil War tactics?

Just because most generals didn't realize that the reality ahd changed and (as usual) fought the last war with this wars weapons doesn't mean that the change didn't happen.

I might as well argue that aircraft carriers were not decisive because everyone still had battleships at the beginning of WW2. Yeah, they did, but that was because they had not yet realized that the game had changed on them.

True, the US Civil War saw trenches, but trenches are not an invention of that war nor an effect of the rifle. Trenches are as old as war itself.

The trench systems seen in the ACW, and fully developed by WW1, were nothing like anything ever seen before.

Never heard about it. Who's the author? And does he really say that the rifle was the single innovation that changed warfare the most between 1850 and now. I must admit that I doubt it.

The Art of War in the Western World
by Archer Jones
Univ of Illinois Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0252069668
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...ef=sr_1_1/002-1888266-1716817#product-details

I am quite sure that the author does *not* say that the rifel was the single greatest innovation, serious historians don't spend their time bickering over things like this

I guess this is where I could argue, that we are not talking evolutions but innovations, but I won't Obviously I am not saying that effect isn't felt, but IMHO other things are far, far more important.

Well, that is certainly worthy of debate. I would not stake my life that the rifle was *the* most important, but I think it has as strong a claim as anything else.

I know it isn't nearly as "sexy" as the idea of Panther racing across the Ukraine, or subs silently striking from the depths, or nearly as dashing as the vision of von Richtoffen buzzing around in his tri-plane. But nonetheless, it radically changed the way war was fought.

To really understand the difference between a rifle and a musket, I prefer to look at rate of fire, range, accuracy, the effect on tactical use and the effect that might have on the strategic level.

Of course. The difference was critical. A musket had a useful range measured in yards, a rifle has a useful range measured in hundreds of yards. The difference is that the rifle makes it extremely difficult for an attacker to reach a decisive range where he can use his weight of numbers to overwhelm his opponent. One guy with a rifle can quite easily hold of three times or more of his number in the right terrain, and I am not talking about one uber-guy holding off three scrubs, I am talking one scrub holding off three other scrubs (which is the reality of warfare in the age of conscription).

And IMHO the immediate effect of the rifle wasn't greater than so many other gunpowder improvements. It had an increased accucary - and therefore range - but that's about it. You could just as well have used the flintlock as an example of a revolution.

That increased range and accuracy revolutionized the way that war was fought unlike anything since. In fact, all the "revolutions" since have been an effort to re-dress the supremacy of the defense achieved by the rifle and machine gun.

Berkut

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut

Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.

Yeah, it was still used, but then so where battleships long after aircraft carriers made them obsolete.

Actually Soviet cavalry was extremely succesful, and the Germans considered the cavalry formations of their satelitte states as those states most valuable contribution. That's not exactly a sign that they were obsolete, is it?

Or to remain in the US Civil War: What's so obsolete about Shermans raid?

The tactics changed *drastically* during the ACW. The fact that they hadn't yet changed at the beginning, or even in some instances by the middle, is why the death toll in some single battles was so horrific. Massing men up and amrching them into rifle fire was devastating in its effect. That you would say that the tactics ahd not changed is rather stunning to me. Have you ever done any real study of Civil War tactics?

Then what were those drastic changes? You had mass infantry armies that deployed in line and column and blasted at each other until the weigth of fire broke the moral of one. Where exactly is the revolution in that?

The trench systems seen in the ACW, and fully developed by WW1, were nothing like anything ever seen before.

That won't do. As mentioned trench warfare was not developed in the US Civil War (and therefore wasn't a result of the rifle), and besides: To the best of my knowledge the most important purpose of a trench is protection against artillery fire and not against direct fire weapons as the rifle.

The Art of War in the Western World
by Archer Jones
Univ of Illinois Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0252069668
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...ef=sr_1_1/002-1888266-1716817#product-details

Thanks. I'll look it up.

I am quite sure that the author does *not* say that the rifel was the single greatest innovation, serious historians don't spend their time bickering over things like this

True, but then way do you call upon him as an authority?

I know it isn't nearly as "sexy" as the idea of Panther racing across the Ukraine, or subs silently striking from the depths, or nearly as dashing as the vision of von Richtoffen buzzing around in his tri-plane. But nonetheless, it radically changed the way war was fought.

Actually I always thought the combustion engine a lot less martial and "sexy" as the rifle. Are you sure the "sexy" argument shouldn't be turned the other way around here?

Of course. The difference was critical. A musket had a useful range measured in yards, a rifle has a useful range measured in hundreds of yards. The difference is that the rifle makes it extremely difficult for an attacker to reach a decisive range where he can use his weight of numbers to overwhelm his opponent. One guy with a rifle can quite easily hold of three times or more of his number in the right terrain, and I am not talking about one uber-guy holding off three scrubs, I am talking one scrub holding off three other scrubs (which is the reality of warfare in the age of conscription).

"Weight of numbers"? During the US Civil War and the Napoleonic wars, infantry fights were resolved by weigth of fire. Nothing different here... Basically you got two lines of men blasting away at each other until one side breaks and runs. The rifle made the killing-zone bigger but that's about it.

I agree that developments in the effectiveness of gunpowder weapons shifted the tactical advantage to the defensive. It's not the first time in history and certainly not the last.

The trend towards the defensive had been there ever since at least the Napoleonic wars, so the rifle isn't something "new", it just continues the trend. IMHO an invention that reverses a trend must be of far greater importance than an invention that just continues down the line.

If you really want to discuss revolutions in firearms, my personal guess is that the introduction of breech-loading was more important than the rifled barrel.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


Actually Soviet cavalry was extremely succesful, and the Germans considered the cavalry formations of their satelitte states as those states most valuable contribution. That's not exactly a sign that they were obsolete, is it?

Or to remain in the US Civil War: What's so obsolete about Shermans raid?

No, but its not a sign they were viable either.

The German satellite states basically provided three types of formations:

1. Crappy motorized/mechanized units that had obsolete weapons and armor. These were alrgely useless in the only role they could perform.

2. Static infantry. Useful, but another infantry division with poor support for the Germans is just more mouths to feed and supplies to move.

3. Cavalry. Not useful as a combat unit, but certainly useful for raids, recon, patrolling, etc.

So the fact that the cavalry was the most useful units is more an effect of the poor options, not that cavalry was not obsolete.

Battleships in WW2 were still quite sueful for a variety of roles, but theyw ere no longer viable weapons with which to effect the outcome of naval engagements, hence they were obsolete. The same with cavalry.

Then what were those drastic changes? You had mass infantry armies that deployed in line and column and blasted at each other until the weigth of fire broke the moral of one. Where exactly is the revolution in that?

Nothing, the revolutionary part was where armies essentially became unable to remove an opposing force from a position where the defensive army has terrain (and trenches are simply artifical terrain) to its advatage. This forced other tactics.

I think you are overly cognizant of what really comprised a small portion of the Civil War. By the end, frontal assaults on prepared positions jsut didn't happen without MASSIVE (much greater than 3:1) superiority of numbers.

Most of the ACW was not fought in Virginia, and was a war of maneuver, flanking, and supply, not "line everyone up and blast away".

That won't do. As mentioned trench warfare was not developed in the US Civil War (and therefore wasn't a result of the rifle), and besides: To the best of my knowledge the most important purpose of a trench is protection against artillery fire and not against direct fire weapons as the rifle.

Trench warfar WAS developed during the ACW. Can you provide an example where entire armies built elaborate and semi-permanent trench systems as a matter of course as was seen in the East regualrly by the end of the war?

Thanks. I'll look it up.




True, but then way do you call upon him as an authority?

I mentioned him as a good source for a systemic study of warfare and how wars are fought. I cite him as support because he makes a good argument for how weapons and tactics change with each other, not anything as specific as this debate.

Actually I always thought the combustion engine a lot less martial and "sexy" as the rifle. Are you sure the "sexy" argument shouldn't be turned the other way around here?

The combustion engine is what drives tanks, subs, ships, planes, etc., etc.

Which point you amde yourself when you brought it up.

But without the rifle, tanks are unecessary. A tank is just cavalry without the horse, a way of providing the force and momentum previously provided by cavalry without the massive vulnerability to infatry firepower that makes cavalry untenable.

"Weight of numbers"? During the US Civil War and the Napoleonic wars, infantry fights were resolved by weigth of fire. Nothing different here... Basically you got two lines of men blasting away at each other until one side breaks and runs. The rifle made the killing-zone bigger but that's about it.

I think you need a little more study on ACW tactics and how they changed throughout the war.

I agree that developments in the effectiveness of gunpowder weapons shifted the tactical advantage to the defensive. It's not the first time in history and certainly not the last.

No, but it was the first time it was done in the time frame in question. Isn't that the point?

The trend towards the defensive had been there ever since at least the Napoleonic wars, so the rifle isn't something "new", it just continues the trend. IMHO an invention that reverses a trend must be of far greater importance than an invention that just continues down the line.

Hmmm, a good point, I admit.

But I think you are minimizing the impact of the rifle as just continuing a trend. I would argue that the rifle saw that trend reach a "critical mass" so to speak that effectively made the defense truly supreme, rather than just becoming better.

This, however, is by far your best argument.

If you really want to discuss revolutions in firearms, my personal guess is that the introduction of breech-loading was more important than the rifled barrel.

Regards,

EoE

Not at all. Which would you rather have, a breech-loading musket or a muzzle loading rifle? If I have the rifle, and you ahve the musket, you are dead long before your higher rate of fire does you any good.

Berkut

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut

No, but its not a sign they were viable either.

You lost me. Cavalry was used with great effect, but that's not a sign it's viable? Then what is?

So the fact that the cavalry was the most useful units is more an effect of the poor options, not that cavalry was not obsolete.

They actually praised those formations and their usefulness. Anyway, then what about the Soviet cavalry of WW2, of the Russian Civil War, or what about Shermans raid? All that cavalry made obsolete by the rifle sure had a hard time packing in...

Battleships in WW2 were still quite sueful for a variety of roles, but theyw ere no longer viable weapons with which to effect the outcome of naval engagements, hence they were obsolete. The same with cavalry.

Speaking of battle-ships: What made them obsolete? The rifle or the combustion engine?

Nothing, the revolutionary part was where armies essentially became unable to remove an opposing force from a position where the defensive army has terrain (and trenches are simply artifical terrain) to its advatage. This forced other tactics.

So there were no revolutionary tactics because of the rifle. Interesting. I'll come back to that in a couple of paragraphs.

I think you are overly cognizant of what really comprised a small portion of the Civil War. By the end, frontal assaults on prepared positions jsut didn't happen without MASSIVE (much greater than 3:1) superiority of numbers.

Isn't the end of the Civil War smaller portion than the rest where those lines just blasted away at each other?

Most of the ACW was not fought in Virginia, and was a war of maneuver, flanking, and supply, not "line everyone up and blast away".

I thought the rifle made manouvering impossible? Or did the rifle have no effect on the Wilderness etc., where "most of the ACW" appearantly was fought?

Trench warfar WAS developed during the ACW. Can you provide an example where entire armies built elaborate and semi-permanent trench systems as a matter of course as was seen in the East regualrly by the end of the war?

Tell that to the armies of the antic. Anyway, every siege since the invention of gunpowder (and before) was essentially trench warfare.

I mentioned him as a good source for a systemic study of warfare and how wars are fought. I cite him as support because he makes a good argument for how weapons and tactics change with each other, not anything as specific as this debate.

Oh, ok. Thanks. I thought there was a point. Anyway, you've heard about Keegan's "The History of Warfare"? Great book.

The combustion engine is what drives tanks, subs, ships, planes, etc., etc. Which point you amde yourself when you brought it up.
But without the rifle, tanks are unecessary. A tank is just cavalry without the horse, a way of providing the force and momentum previously provided by cavalry without the massive vulnerability to infatry firepower that makes cavalry untenable.

Actually cavalry and armour is employed quite differently, and the tank was also developed in response to field artillery and everything else that contributed to the killing zone. Anyway, do aircraft and subs also depend on the rifle?

I think you need a little more study on ACW tactics and how they changed throughout the war.

Well, I asked how they changed because of the rifle, but got told that nothing revolutionary happened. So I think I'll just maintain that most of the fighting in the US Civil War wasn't that different from Napoleonic times.

No, but it was the first time it was done in the time frame in question. Isn't that the point?

(...)

But I think you are minimizing the impact of the rifle as just continuing a trend. I would argue that the rifle saw that trend reach a "critical mass" so to speak that effectively made the defense truly supreme, rather than just becoming better.

Hm, did the advantage really shift that drastically to the defensive after the US Civil War and before the introduction of the MG? I must admit that I doubt it, and I can't really see the same trend in the European wars of 1864, 1866 and 1870.

Not at all. Which would you rather have, a breech-loading musket or a muzzle loading rifle? If I have the rifle, and you ahve the musket, you are dead long before your higher rate of fire does you any good.

If you ask the muzzle loading Danish infantry that got shot to pieces by the breech-loading Prussian infantry in 1864, a higher rate of fire is preferable. The Austrians could tell a similar tale.

With the tactics involved, individual aim becomes pretty unimportant. It is the weigth of the fire that counts and thus the rate of fire.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Jayavarman]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


AFAIK gas had had very little impact on any war.

Regards,

EoE

As I said, the significance of the poison gas was limited through the invention of the gas mask shortly after. It did however, cause much panic for the Allies.

 

[Berkut]

I give up. You keep saying I said things I didn't say, so this is no longer interesting. I will only repeat myself once or twice before these little "debates" get tiresome, rather than and enjoyable diversion.

Congratulations. The ICE is by far the most decisive innovation of warfare since 1850, and the rifle had minimal, if any, impact on warfare.

Berkut

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut
I give up. You keep saying I said things I didn't say, so this is no longer interesting. I will only repeat myself once or twice before these little "debates" get tiresome, rather than and enjoyable diversion.

Congratulations. The ICE is by far the most decisive innovation of warfare since 1850, and the rifle had minimal, if any, impact on warfare.

Berkut

Eh...?

If you feel I've been putting words in your mouth, feel free to point out where I have done so, instead of giving me the old "O I give up - this ignorance and these manners are intolerable".

Let me remind you that you several times questioned my knowledge about US Civil War tactics, and claimed that the rifle changed those dramatically, yet you haven't mentioned even one of those changes.

Let me also remind you that I have never said that the impact of the rifle was minimal. I just said that it wasn't the most important. But by all means: go play the victim

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Phillip V


As I said, the significance of the poison gas was limited through the invention of the gas mask shortly after. It did however, cause much panic for the Allies.

Yeah, so we agree. The signifance of poison gas was limited.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe



Let me remind you that you several times questioned my knowledge about US Civil War tactics, and claimed that the rifle changed those dramatically, yet you haven't mentioned even one of those changes.

Yes, I mentioned several of those changes, as in:

The decline in the effective use of cavalry. You dismissed this out of hand.

The rising use of trenches. You dismissed this out of hand.

The demand and use in the mid to later parts of the war of maneuver and fighting the supply battle instead of frontal assaults. You dismissed this out of hand, and too boot claimed that I said there WEREN'T any revolutionary changes in tactics.

I am not playinig a "victim", your ad homs, aside, I just am not willing to play the gaem where I make arguments, you ingore them or create strawmen, and then I repeat what I already said, and you repeat your strawmen.

It has nothing to do with victimhood, and everything to do with finding those kind of discussions boring.

I could as easily play the exact same game with the ICE, and say that it was simply a replacement for the horse (in the case of land warafe) or the wind (in the case of naval warfare), and didn't really change anything. Simple an evolutionary step, inevitable, not interesting. But those kind of reductionist arguments are trivial and uninteresting, since they can ltierlaly be applied to anything at all.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Berkut


Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.

Yeah, it was still used, but then so where battleships long after aircraft carriers made them obsolete.

f I could, I would tell that to all those poor bastards who got blown away trying to attack Panzers with their lances.

Berkut, you seem to not know much about cavalry, you know?

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Maur13

Berkut, you seem to not know much about cavalry, you know?

Enlighten me. Give me examples of the ability of cavalry (and not dismounted cavalry, i.e. infantry with a horse) was able to do what it was that cavalry did in the past (decisivley break an enemy position through application of shock and force) after the advent of the rifle.

You won't be able to find any. The role of cavalry ACW and on was one of patrolling, recon, and raids. Contrast that to the role of cavalry throughout the previous hudnreds of years, where it was often the decisive arm of warfare.

And even *that* role was simply one where commanders used what was available. My analogy to battleships is perfectly valid; there is no question that they were obsolete by WW2 for the role they were intended for. Does that make them useless? Of course not. Obsolete is not the same thing as useless. Heck, even today battleships are useful, just not for the role they were built for.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, you said:


=====
Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.
=====\\
About post and including ACW cavalry. Well, the fact is that in WW I and WW II most of cavalry was mainly used as mechanized infantry really, dragoons (mostly fighting on foot).
There are some people here arguing that cavalry never was intendet to head-on-charge, as you imply in your previous post.

And there were instances when cavalry charged, as far as in WW II, on horses, and won. No, i can't give you examples, sorry.

Ah, this:
====
f I could, I would tell that to all those poor bastards who got blown away trying to attack Panzers with their lances.
====\\

Is a myth

Hmmm, i'm not really into ACW, but what was the famous "Pickett charge"?

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Maur13
Well, you said:


=====
Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.
=====\\
About post and including ACW cavalry. Well, the fact is that in WW I and WW II most of cavalry was mainly used as mechanized infantry really, dragoons (mostly fighting on foot).
There are some people here arguing that cavalry never was intendet to head-on-charge, as you imply in your previous post.

It was certainly used quite often in combat, as in the guys rode the horse into combat, as opposed to the horse just being a means of getting around quickly.

Certainly even today horses would be a perfectly viable way to get around quickly. That does not mean they are not obsolete though. There are much, much better ways of getting around in the majority of cases.

And there were instances when cavalry charged, as far as in WW II, on horses, and won. No, i can't give you examples, sorry.

I am sure there are some cases, just as there are cases where battleships fought and won battles long after they were made obsolete by the aircraft carrier.

Ah, this:
====
f I could, I would tell that to all those poor bastards who got blown away trying to attack Panzers with their lances.
====\\

Is a myth

OK, caught me on that one.

Hmmm, i'm not really into ACW, but what was the famous "Pickett charge"?

Infantry move, not cavalry. Actually, an outstanding example of how the rifle made Napoleonic tactics obsolete.

Basically Pickets division was one of those who charged the Federal lines on day three of Gettysburg. They were wiped out, but they looked mighty good doing it.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well:

You state cavalry was obsolete in this period. From your posts i can assume that obsolete means that there were better means than horses to do the things horses used to do. While it can be arguable (well, what were than means, in, say, late XIX century? Or even WW I?), i might even agree with that. Might


Anyway. So, let's assume your point is that cavalry was obsolete. So, what the hell that:

====
Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.
====///
Means?


Well, i agree that few charges doesn't mean cavalry days of beign the most important arm weren't long gone. But well, it wasn't exactly the most important cavalry duty during the history, breaking enemy lines through charge. Except Polish Hussars, of course

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Maur13

Anyway. So, let's assume your point is that cavalry was obsolete. So, what the hell that:

====
Cavalry might have been used, but that doesn't make it viable. In fact, every time cavalry was used in actual combat, it got decimated.
====///
Means?

It means that whenever some bright sould thought he was living in the 18th century got the idea that they should use cavalry as shock troops, or when some poor cavalry unit got cuaght on their horses by an enemy force, they got cut to ribbons.

That is all.

If cavalry was "viable" in WW2, what changed between then and now that makes it not-viable today?

Or is it viable today, but every modern army is just missing the boat?

Why are we arguing over something so pointless and tangenital to begin with?

Berkut

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Originally posted by General Winter
The Stirrup

I must agree with the General here.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Berkut

Why are we arguing over something so pointless and tangenital to begin with?

Probably

Originally posted by Berkut

It means that whenever some bright sould thought he was living in the 18th century got the idea that they should use cavalry as shock troops, or when some poor cavalry unit got cuaght on their horses by an enemy force, they got cut to ribbons.

That is all.

Well, you assume that cavalry stops beign cavalry if it dismounts. Well, it has some merit, but it's arguable. And if it's not the case, then your statement about cavalry beign decimated in every combat it engaged includes those instances when it was dismounted. Which is wrong. (not to mention that i would be more careful if i were you with usung phrases such as "always", since there are examples of mounted cavalry not beign "decimated" in combat after ACW.

Originally posted by Berkut

If cavalry was "viable" in WW2, what changed between then and now that makes it not-viable today?

Or is it viable today, but every modern army is just missing the boat?

First, let me check what exactly viable means

Argh.

Oh well. I don't know.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Berkut

The decline in the effective use of cavalry. You dismissed this out of hand.

What you said was, that the rifle made cavalry obsolete. I merely pointed to the fact, that cavalry was used succesfully in a lot of major operations after the introduction of the rifle. That's not a dismissal out of hand. That's a point in an argument.

Another point is that you haven't considered for a second whether the cause of the subsequent fall of cavalry really was the rifle. IMHO it can be argued even more convincingly that heavy artillery made cavalry too vulnerable to employ in a pitched battle.

Is that another "dismissal out of hand"? Jeez, you haven't even defined what on earth you mean by a rifle, but seem to group ACW rifles, WWI MG's and modern assault rifles under one single heading: "The rifle". Do you even know that it was invented in the 17th century and thus fall pretty short of this thread? If you do know that, then please enlighten me: what do you mean with "the rifle", and what invention after 1850 made it such a quantum leap in warfare?

The rising use of trenches. You dismissed this out of hand.

This is getting childish in the extreme. I did not dismiss it out of hand, I just pointed out that it's wrong to say that trench warfare was an invention (and an effect) of the rifle.

Here's another fact for you: most battlefield casualties do not come from small-arms fire, but from artillery. If you want to use the trenches to prove anything, you should probably try to argue that steel artillery was most important instead. That would make more sense.

The demand and use in the mid to later parts of the war of maneuver and fighting the supply battle instead of frontal assaults. You dismissed this out of hand, and too boot claimed that I said there WEREN'T any revolutionary changes in tactics.

Okay, this might be due to language difficulties, but when asked about the revolutionary tactics that came with the rifle during the ACW, you mentioned none, and said that none were developed.

I am by no means an expert in the ACW, but everything I have read and seen, points to battles even very, very late in the war, were lines of infantry marched against each other and blasted away until one side breaks and run.

But it seems you are argueing something entirely else here. Namely that the battle developed into a war of manouvre (at least on an operational level). How does that correspond with your claim that the rifle turned ACW into trench warfare?!

I am not playinig a "victim", your ad homs, aside, I just am not willing to play the gaem where I make arguments, you ingore them or create strawmen, and then I repeat what I already said, and you repeat your strawmen.

It has nothing to do with victimhood, and everything to do with finding those kind of discussions boring.

Actually I don't only think you are overreacting. I believe you do exactly what you accuse me of, so quit the whining pretty-please?

I could as easily play the exact same game with the ICE, and say that it was simply a replacement for the horse (in the case of land warafe) or the wind (in the case of naval warfare), and didn't really change anything. Simple an evolutionary step, inevitable, not interesting. But those kind of reductionist arguments are trivial and uninteresting, since they can ltierlaly be applied to anything at all.

Go ahead. That could be absurd.

EoE

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Go ahead. That could be absurd.

EoE

Well, DUH!

Of course it would be absurd, exactly as absurd as your dismissal of the rifle with reductionist arguments. It can be trivially applied to ANYTHING.

But thanks for finally admitting you were wrong to claim that I said that the rifle did not introduce any revolutionary tactics to the civil war.

Berkut