Did mechanized warfare enable the Allies to win in WWI?

Answer 1

No mechanized war did not end WW1, WW1 ended because of the collapse of the German Government and the desire by all parties to end the slaughter.
Mechanized warfare was introduced in WW1, and the combined arms theory. Tanks were employed by the allies but with limited success due to the tanks frequently breaking down.
Trucks did make an impression in the supply systems of armies however the truck were able to move supplies faster than horses, but the again the maintenance issues of motorized transportation still needed to be worked out.

Answer 2

No, mechanized warfare did not enable the allies to win WWI. Nor did U.S. equipment - the U.S. had to borrow the equipment it used in WWI, it couldn't ship equipment over fast enough.

WWI ended because after 4 years of war all of the engaged powers were exhausted. None had any significant hope of victory. The U.S. joined in the war at the end. It had not suffered the losses of the other powers and the Allies were then likely to win due to sheer outlasting Germany.

However, facing the seemingly inevitable loss the Germany sailors mutinied in port and the German war effort collapsed. Althought their eventual military defeat was certain, they ultimately collapsed from within.

The mechanized warfare that occurred in WWI was on too limited a scale to achieve any significant effect. It had no more significance in the war then the jet fighter did in WWII, it was just a novelty too late and too few to make a difference.



Note: Scipio is thinking WWII, not WWI

Answer 3

Yes.
The US and Britain supplied 90% of the trucks and 40% of the tanks and planes which the Soviet army used- basically turning the Red Army from a horse and cart outfit into a modern mechanised army with efficient supply corps. A huge jump in quality and not something the nazis could handle.

In the case of germany only some 20% of their units were fully mechanised, most used horse drawn guns in paralel with motorized artillery- which meant much slower moving units. Sure, the crack units were very fast and very good, but on the allied side ALL units were fast (if not as good) and there were much more of them

Answer 4

mechanized warfare(such as tanks) didnt really help the allies win the war. The invention of the U-boat helped keep germany strong for a while, but it also brought american into the war, which was a killing blow for the axis powers. new, large, british ships called dreadnoughts also helped blockade germany from getting new supplies, so to some extent, yes.

Answer 5

there replaced right into a huge quantity of Trench conflict, besides the undeniable fact that it replaced into no longer all in that project. The conflict of Jutland replaced into the significant naval conflict of WWI, and replaced into completely epic, with many losses on each section. The race to the sea replaced into finished of skirmishes and artillery performed a huge section contained in the conflict in the present day. Trench conflict replaced into indicative of the stalemate that got here about. operating battles were no longer that basic, yet many times a community might want to be held by the enemy, and there might want to be an almost 'siege' mentality to take the realm, with artillery slicing off elements to the realm, and the raiding activities to attack the enemy. Mining also became component of exposing weak spot in trench conflict, with thousands of pounds of explosives being planted lower than and enemy trench before detonating the mine and rushing the crater.

Answer 6

No both sides had the same tools of war. The Allies won because both sides were exhausted by almost four years of killing and destruction before the US got directly involved. Men and new equipment from the US were the deciding factors.

Answer 7

To some extent. The Central Powers also had advanced technology such as machine guns and posion gas, and it was probably not the main cause for the Allied victory. It's impact was mostly that the death toll increased.