How were the weapons used and how did they affect the war?
2007-10-09 11:38:35 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
How did Airplanes, Machine Guns, Tanks, etc. affect the war?
2007-10-09 11:58:03 · update #1
they were fired, and they won it........
.
2007-10-09 11:41:20 · answer #1 · answered by USMCstingray 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It took a while for the allied generals to realize it, but the invention of the machine gun meant that walking slowly towards the enemy was no longer a sign of strength, etc. Just a sign of stupidity. The increasing mechanisation of the military forces involved, most specifically machine guns and tanks, made the infantrymans role on an open battlefield one of consolidation. Cavalry also became outdated: Previously their speed enabled them to be amongst the enemy inflicting damage before they took significant losses. Improved rates of fire meant that this was no longer the case. Initially tanks were fairly useless; they had no rotating turret, overheated easily, stuck in mud, and made nice big targets for artillery. They were however very scary to the uninitiated, their ability to endure no-mans land for more then five seconds was a definite bonus and once they had blown up you could still use the shell for cover, so they were good morale builders for allies, and demoralizing for whoever faced one that hadnt blown up yet. Mustard gas was also used, and although it inflicted many casualties it could very easily backfire, and was more of a demoralizer then an effective weapon. Finally WW1 was also a boon to artilliary, with shells being lobbed across no-mans land on a regular basis, though rarely doing significant damage. The generals just liked big guns, unfortunately.
2007-10-09 11:54:53 · answer #2 · answered by Rafael 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they affected its srategy especially the machine-gun which forced a major re-thinking of the military taktics.Generaly the influence of the arnaments can be shown from the fact that when the war srarted it was considered that the attackers would have the advantage, whereas when the war ended the theories now favored the defence
2007-10-09 11:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by chrisvoulg1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They (specifically, the machine-gun) forced it into a stalemate. With machine-guns in place (and with armored vehicles not yet developed and battle tanks in their infancy), the attacking side is at a perpetual disadvantage; you get mowed down as soon as you stand up. So World War I was often referred to as "the war in trenches"...
2007-10-09 11:44:47 · answer #4 · answered by NC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Prior to World War I, armies faced one another on open battle fields, facing only single shot rifles and highly inaccurate cannons. Armies continued their battle strategies based on this centuries old practice of fighting in open battlefields.
However, the machine gun with rapid fire technology and the tank that was essentially a mechanical cannon with greater accuracy, ended the ancient practice of open warfare on battlefields. It took the entire war to learn this lesson the hard way. Millions died in open field warfare.
2007-10-09 11:47:06 · answer #5 · answered by Jude & Cristen H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
say you go back in time and fight off the nazi army, your being in the past would create an entirely new future. for example say your great grandfather fought in the war as well and fought along side you, but friendly fire from the "time travelers" accidentally kills him. This implies that your grandpa, father, and even you were never born. Yet you and still there. This is the time travel paradox and why traveling into the past could never influence the future of the world you cam from. It only becomes practical when we consider the possibilities of parallel universes which we travel to instead, its a complicated topic to fully understand.
2016-05-20 01:36:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The machine gun forced armies to change old tactics. The old line tactic would be mowed down so the troops were forced to entrench.
2007-10-09 11:43:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the defensive weapons of the time (such as the machine gun and barbed wire) were superior to offensive weapons, resulting in trench warfare
2007-10-09 14:31:40 · answer #8 · answered by apollonius 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Short answer...HORRIFIC casualties. The military forces of the world hadn't sufficiently adjusted their cultures, strategies, etc. for the technology of the era.
2007-10-09 11:54:02 · answer #9 · answered by Brian Tubbs 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well they tank gave the allies a great advantage to get over no man's land
2007-10-09 11:41:30 · answer #10 · answered by Cody 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Elaborate a bit, do you mean tanks?
2007-10-09 11:41:51 · answer #11 · answered by Seed Plower 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋