What exactly made WW1 so terrible, compared to the wars that

Modern war equipment + outdated battle tactics. Made it long and slow but lethal at the same time.

>>1657469
>outdated battle tactics
i want this meme to die

>>1657461

Machine guns, very long range artillery and not very mobile units to pierce enemy lines with.
But in general, tactics weren't outdated. The tactics were perfectly suited to that kind of warfare.

>>1657461
Communications were shit.

That was pretty much it.

Breakthroughs happened multiple times during nearly every offensive operation conducted by either side. The problem was by the time they got the word to HQ and got the support and men they needed it was always too late.

Well into the war, runners and the odd pidgeons were being used over radios since "portable" radios of the time were expensive, unreliable and had short range. Even late into the war I don't believe they ever managed to get radios down at the platoon level.

>>1657461
Largest number of shellshocked soldiers recorded, disease like trenchfoot was rampant because of the conditions, couldnt even see the enemy most of the time so both sides bombarded each other with artillery fire, and if soldiers ever made it into enemy trenches, the battle was mostly hand to hand, involving shit like trench knives and rocks, not to mention the amount of malnutrition.

Pretty horrific stuff.

>>1657480
It's not as bad as it is made out to be, but you can't deny that some battle plans such as those made by Hague were awful.

>>1657487
that and the lack of mobility mentioned by >>1657483
- so your problems with a relatively successful offensive would be two-fold, you couldn't coordinate and communicate easily, and even if you did, you lacked the means to either support the attack further or properly exploit a breakthrough

>>1657499
battle plans drawn up by the general staff are not tactics
furthermore, please do elaborate about some of these awful battle plans of field marshal """"""""hague"""""""

>>1657461
it was the least necessary war in history

>>1657490
>Largest number of shellshocked soldiers recorded
Seeing as the concept of shell-shock was in its infancy, so to speak, during WW1, that is not particularly remarkable.

>>1657512
>it was the least necessary war in history
what does that even mean

There was essentially nothing for morale, along with just abysmal conditions inside static defenses.

In World War II, morale was kept high by the successes of each power, whether it's the capture of Paris by the Germans, or the retaking of Kiev by the Russians, there was always reward for the soldiers efforts to be shown.

In WWI, there was no reward for most battles. To watch 600,000 of your comrades die for 30 miles of territory at the somme was devastating for most people.

The constant bombarding and gas attacks wore down on people's sanity much faster as well, seeing as they could not run or retreat. To imagine sleeping at night, then all of the sudden the air you're breathing is poison is too much for most people to handle.

>>1657461
If you want to understand why was it considered to be the biggest "war is hell" moment in history - it's because the militaries suffered GIGANTIC casualties in it. 10% of enlisted or drafted soldiers were either killed, MIA or taken prisoner. During WW2 it was 3,6% or something like that.

As for why was it such a disaster(trench war) - the same faults that fucked up other trench-conflicts were there. Soldiers weren't trained enough, NCO's and field CO's lacked initiative(and often numbers), communications were a mess etc.

>>1657505
Whoopsidoodles, Haig, sorry.
I have never understood why he pushed forward into Ypres without waiting for the AEF, which would have made that battle a hell of a lot less costly.

>>1657516
Shellshock rarely happened before WW1. The reason why it even appears is that human brain and body does great against short-term stress/danger. It in fact loves those situations. If you've been shelled for 3rd day while hidden in your shelter though, it was too long for being "short term" stress which ended up in brains going dim.

The Virgin effect. The first time is always the most intense.

>>1657487
Also logistics of the time disproportionately favored the defender. Supply lines were based around railroads since motor vehicles circa 1914 were shit.

>>1657461
Because English media is naturally Anglocentric, our perceptions of the war are based on the British perceptions of the war. And in WW1, Britain got pinned down and drawn into a major land war for the first time since Napoleon. And unlike all the various Wars of the Coalition, Britain couldn't just pull back to their island and regroup; they were stuck in the meatgrinder for the duration.

This is also why the major perception of the war seems to be that it was just 4 years of Ypres.

>>1657461

The overwhelming firepower of modern industry combined with the political will of all participants to win.

This meant the First World War was essentially one big materielschlact. Once trench warfare was confirmed in October 1914, the war was going to be a test of who could last the longest.

In the case of the British, they had only a small professional army at the start which was virtually gone by December 1914. The Territorials (Part time soldiers) were next used up in the battles of 1915 such as Loos, Aubers Ridge and Neuve Chappelle. This meant that a mixture of volunteers and conscripts made up the bulk of the army for the remainder of the war.

Imagine trying to teach a completely new army, a completely new war of warfare. By new army, I don't just mean frontline soldiers. Think of the volume of munitions and war materiel required to conduct a "total war." The vast supply of labour needed to construct defences, roads, trainlines and communications. Even in late 1918 when the Germans were faltering, the Allies were still hard pressed to keep their momentum going. They were moving too fast for their logistics networks to cope.

>>1657720
>The overwhelming firepower of modern industry combined with the political will of all participants to win.

Pretty much this
2 millions of shells were fired the first 5 days of Verdun
In total, it's estimated that over 100 millions were fired during the whole battle

Nothing but incompetent commanders on either side.

>>1657512
It was unnecessary grom the perspective that millions of men died because of the assassination of one Austro-Hungarian royal but the Great powers were poised for war anyway and if it weren't for Gavrilo Princip, something else would have likely triggered a war on par with it.

Nationalism meant that the average citizen was willing to chip in through war bonds, so the normal constraints of resources and weariness were overcome.

17 million people died m8

>>1658012
>100 millions
Jesus, just imagine being one of the guys that owned a factory and produced and sold the shells

>>1657643
Because Verdun was such a cakewalk

Tactics weren't modern but weapons were

>>1657461

Killing power high
Mobility low

>>1658153
He's a Brit, they didnt know an horror like Verdun
100 years later, France and Germany are still scarred by that battle

>>1657561
>WW1 was the first massive global war

You sound retarded.

File: 1471794004095.jpg (2MB, 2292x1419px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2292x1419px

>>1658153
I don't think his argument is that French or Germans had it easier. Just that it was first time in a long time Brits got into a major land warfare in Europe they couldn't just sit back and weight out in their Islands from.

>>1658017

Retarded/10

>>1658153
I didn't say it was. Just that the British (and therefor Anglosphere) view of the war was 4 years in a muddy trench fighting over a few feet of land on a front that never ever moved.

>>1657480
>there were no outdated battle tactics

I want you to die.

memes, mostly

>>1657461
It wasnt compared to the napoleonic wars,its just bourgeois morality filtering through

File: jazzzzzz.png (332KB, 496x573px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 496x573px

>>1657461
After reading multiple books that are first hand accounts, it is actually waiting around in a cold, damp, mud filled hole for hours while people snipe your friends. Then there is the hours of being bombarded where every crash feels like you might be buried alive when no one can hear you get scream. Artillery also churned up the mud and the corpses that lay underneath it.

This over months and months broke the minds of many thousands of men.

>>1660005
>This over months and months broke the minds of many thousands of men.
Troops were rotated to the front for three weeks,then spending the next 6 weeks in the rear.

File: 1467287747156.jpg (239KB, 1044x770px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1044x770px

>>1660028
Uhhhh, you got me there I think some of my WW2 books bled through there. I believe British rotations were in two week intervals and Germans/central powers in three week intervals though.

>>1660028
still, three weeks of constant shelling and helplessness are more than enough to break most men

>>1660895

It was commonplace on he eastern front in ww2... Sans the rotation.