So in your opinion, which weapon permanently ended cavalry in warfare, the machine gun or the tank. I think the tank ended cavalry. With a machine gun, you have to set it up and it's stationary. Cav tactics would be developed to flank around and charge machine guns. You can't flank a tank with anything but a tank or a bazooka. Cav can never charge a tank because of armor plating and the rotating turret. It's also impossible to fire a bazooka on horseback.
You can fire a bazooka on horseback. I mean you would get propelled 50 yrds backwards but its possible lol.
There were no bazookas in World War I, but they did have anti-tank rifles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13.2_mm_Rifle_Anti-Tank_(Mauser) To me what ended cavalry in warfare was a mixture of machine guns, tanks, and trench warfare.
My mind Germany could have won the war if they had concentrated on submarines a lot more U-BOOTE HERAUS!!! 1. It would have been quite hard to flank the trenches (stretching from Belgium to Switzerland) in WW I. 2. Cavalry could move AT-guns to tanks flank. 3. The first tanks didn't have rotating turrets. Also have you guys heard of the "Dogger Bank incident", it happened during the Russo-Japanese war when the Russian Baltic fleet was redeploying to pacific. The Russian sailors mistook some British trawlers for Japanese torpedo boats and started firing them. This almost lead to war between Great-Britain and Russia, but thanks to the French it didn't happen. So just think what if there would have been a war between Britain and Russia, the triple Entente would have been broken for sure thus the WW I would have been quite different (or at least the conflict about the murder of Franz Ferdinand).
Some did, but I'm going with you're talking about the British tanks. Renault FT-17 Well no, but you can say the First World War was last real time that Generals really saw Cavalry as a way to win battles.
True, but it wasn't used until 1917, a year before the war had ended, and it wasn't very commonly used at all, if I'm not mistaking. Yeah, that's true. Speaking of generals in WWI, was there actually one single general who wasn't a moron?
Ludendorff seemed a decent general. He at least managed to turn away Russia at Tannenberg, which was a downright slaughter.
They made 4,000 of the Renault tanks. Also tanks only started being used in 1916 at the battle of the Somme and there was only one big tank battle in World War I at Cambrai in 1917. Well the Generals in World War I were dealing with a new kind of war that they didn't plan for. One General that I do like is Philippe Pétain and how he handled the defense of Verdun in 1916 and that he stoped the widespread mutinies in the French Army in 1917. (Bad thing is that in World War II he worked with the Nazis by being in charge of Vichy France.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Pétain One other Gernerl is Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck that was in command of German East Africa. He fought the allies in Africa from 1914 in till the end of the war in 1918 and was undefeated in the field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck
Yeah, I guess. But by the end of the war, they had been fighting for almost 4 years, and they still did full scale invasions. They could have guessed it wasn't going to work at least half way in 1915... Ah, Pétain. Wasn't he himself actually a Nazi? I heard he actually actively deported more Jews from Vichy France than the Germans asked for. But the African battling was really different from the European fighting. Much less trenches and such because the fighting itself was much more primitive and basic.
I really don't know, but I don't think he was a Nazi. In the end I think he worked for the Nazis because he didn't want to see the same kind of bloodshed as in World War I. To me at least he went back to France to face his punishment. I quote Wikipedia Well the fighting in Africa was mostly Jungle and open plans warfare. You see World War I was fought all over the world, its just that the fighting in Europe most the Western Front is well know.
1 and 3 I can agree with on, but 2 I can't agree upon. Moving AT guns to flank a tank would take too much time with deploying and the weight of the AT gun.
We could of, but there was money to be had and a chance to be noticed on the world scale. Just like the European counties that were fighting to become more powerful.
Still we could have continued the status quo of the war and had it so that we got money off the destroyed industries in Europe, while everyone had to rely on the united state while at the same time supporting both sides "in trade" Though in all actuality we should have stayed on the status quo.
True, but if the allies lost they might not of been able to pay off there war debt. Also we did trade with both sides, but it was much harder to trade with the Germans because of the British blockade so we traded more with France and Great Britain there for we diffently wanted them to win the war.
We had more business interest with Great Britian, which is sad because I supported Germany and would have voted for Taft.
