Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Revolutionary event

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Revolutionary event

    What was the most significant battle or campaign of WWII, in terms of its impact on wars to come, rather than its impact on the course of WWII? For example, the introduction of a revolutionary tactic or doctrine, the introduction or utilization of a weapon or technology, an action that validated or invalidated some concept or theory, etc.?
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

  • #2
    I'm thinking the German air assault on Eban Emal. It opened up the entire realm of paratroop operations later used to (mostly) great succes by the allies. Amphibious assaults, strategic bombing and manuever warfare also come to mind, but the use of paratroopers stands out more in my mind. The amphib, strat bombing and manuever warfare were extensions from WWI with (then) untested mesthods of warfare (thinking Gallipoli, zepplin and bomber raids on factories and rail lines and tank usage), but paratroops were something new.
    If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

    Comment


    • #3
      German V-2 technology. The father of the space program.
      Lance W.

      Peace through superior firepower.

      Comment


      • #4
        Revolutionary Events

        I tend to think the campaigns of General Slim offer some insight into wars that followed. The use of air transportation to support battles and the use of the tank in jungle warfare lead in a direct line to the Vietnam War.

        The ME-262 jet fighter used in combat over Germany in late 44 and 45. Not long after, jets have propelled most military planes since WWII.

        The Germans use of massed armor and close combat support aircraft in Poland and France changes how everyone fights wars. Although often called Blitzkreig, the correct term for this should be combined arms warfare. The German use of the radio in individual tanks and aircraft was slowly adopted by the Allieds.

        Comment


        • #5
          The use of carrier-launched planes changed the face of Naval warfare forever and sealed the fate of the era of the Battleship. .

          Dr. S.
          Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

          www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

          www.tabletown.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            Most relevant to today's battleground could be linked to partisan activity.

            One man's...excuse me, ...one person's partisan, is another's terrorist. For example, the French resistance, and the Yugoslav partisans, could have been considered terrorists by the Germans. Since they had some support from the Allies, it might be considered to have been sponsored terrorism.

            To the point, terrorist/partisan/freedom fighter activity needs to be handled by occupying forces. We have shown we learned yesterday's lessons by the successful use of modern battlefield doctrine. But have we learned the lesson of how to deal with terrorist activity?

            Goal number one of partisan activity is to get the occupying force to leave.

            Another goal is to tie down forces doing occupation duty, that could otherwise be use at the front. We may not have traditional fronts to man, but we do have non-traditional fronts.

            What WWII did for this kind of activity is provide international coordination to a behind-the-lines conflict. Something never seen on such a scale before. State-sponsored terrorism goes way back, but not likely to the level as we saw 60 years ago.
            Retreat hell, we just got here. Every Marine, a rifleman.

            Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Iron Mike USMC
              Most relevant to today's battleground could be linked to partisan activity.

              One man's...excuse me, ...one person's partisan, is another's terrorist. For example, the French resistance, and the Yugoslav partisans, could have been considered terrorists by the Germans. Since they had some support from the Allies, it might be considered to have been sponsored terrorism.

              To the point, terrorist/partisan/freedom fighter activity needs to be handled by occupying forces. We have shown we learned yesterday's lessons by the successful use of modern battlefield doctrine. But have we learned the lesson of how to deal with terrorist activity?

              Goal number one of partisan activity is to get the occupying force to leave.

              Another goal is to tie down forces doing occupation duty, that could otherwise be use at the front. We may not have traditional fronts to man, but we do have non-traditional fronts.

              What WWII did for this kind of activity is provide international coordination to a behind-the-lines conflict. Something never seen on such a scale before. State-sponsored terrorism goes way back, but not likely to the level as we saw 60 years ago.
              Your point is true, but I can't see WW II as its origin. The word and concept of guerrilla warfare is from the Peninsula war of Spain (with Britain's help) against the Napoleonic French.
              Lance W.

              Peace through superior firepower.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Revolutionary event

                Originally posted by hogdriver
                What was the most significant battle or campaign of WWII, in terms of its impact on wars to come, rather than its impact on the course of WWII? For example, the introduction of a revolutionary tactic or doctrine, the introduction or utilization of a weapon or technology, an action that validated or invalidated some concept or theory, etc.?
                As much as I hate to say it; but the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once everyone saw how wars can get; the world has been relatively peaceful since then.

                Cheers!


                Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Doctor Sinister
                  The use of carrier-launched planes changed the face of Naval warfare forever and sealed the fate of the era of the Battleship. .

                  Dr. S.
                  There; there Doc. Here is a nice picture of the last British battleship. She went before her time.

                  Cheers!


                  Attached Files
                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Re: Revolutionary event

                    Originally posted by RStory
                    As much as I hate to say it; but the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once everyone saw how wars can get; the world has been relatively peaceful since then.

                    Cheers!


                    Have to agree with you there, RStory. The A-Bomb changed the face of warfare. Without threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, who wants to be World War III would have been fought (at the absolute latest) in the 1960s.
                    "Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for"
                    "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, and a lot of bitching"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      After reading all the fine replies to this question, I've come to the conclusion that there were a lot more then just one or two innovations that have changed the face of warfare. Just look at the sweep of weapons of WW2. From the small machine gun equipped Panzer1 to the A-bomb. The world sure covered a lot of ground in a few short years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RStory
                        There; there Doc. Here is a nice picture of the last British battleship. She went before her time.

                        Cheers!


                        Sob! Thanks man...

                        Dr. S.
                        Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

                        www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

                        www.tabletown.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lance Williams
                          Your point is true, but I can't see WW II as its origin. The word and concept of guerrilla warfare is from the Peninsula war of Spain (with Britain's help) against the Napoleonic French.
                          I did not say partisan/terrorist activity began in WWII. What I said was the scale of it, and how multi-national guerilla efforts were coordinated/backed/supplied from great distances, creating a global infrastructure (though not said in those words).

                          I thought about the use of the atomic bomb, but its very existence made it obsolete/unusauble. Once used, it was realized how devastating their use could be. With both sides (and others) having them, the very thought of using them, and the consequences, kept them out of the equation when looking for military solutions. Not to say there weren't some who considered using them, but those who had the authoiryt to use them always refrained.

                          We have not had and truly "global" conflicts since WWII because of them. However, both the US and Soviet Union, and some other nations, have been using state-sponsored insurgencies, etc, since 1945 to project their political doctrines and agendas. It isn't a new concept, but it was never done in the scope that has been in the last 60 years.
                          Retreat hell, we just got here. Every Marine, a rifleman.

                          Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            From the naval warfare point of view I would have to say Pearl Harbor. It ended the debate on the relative rolls of ships as gun platforms versus ships as air platforms. Not only did it approve the effectiveness of the air platform but it put the US of having to rely on carriers as their principal capital ship.

                            The pincipal of ships being platforms for airborne weapons(both winged and rocket) continues to this day and shows no sign of changing in the near future.
                            Boston Strong!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JSMoss
                              From the naval warfare point of view I would have to say Pearl Harbor. It ended the debate on the relative rolls of ships as gun platforms versus ships as air platforms. Not only did it approve the effectiveness of the air platform but it put the US of having to rely on carriers as their principal capital ship.

                              The pincipal of ships being platforms for airborne weapons(both winged and rocket) continues to this day and shows no sign of changing in the near future.
                              Ships to deliver airpower is one thing, but don't forget the added dimension of air superiority. Not only did carriers extend the reach of airpower, but were able to provide mobile, effective, and decisive air superiority over the battlefield, be it on the waves, the beach, or inland.

                              As far as a shift from the capital surface ship to the carrier, most ages had similar changes. The Roman advent of purpose-built ship-to-ship troops added a great advantage over other Mediterranean naval powers. The inclusion of a mechanical engine as a power source added great advantage to the navies which first incorporated them.

                              Until such time that aircraft are rendered obsolete due to weapons systems advancements, or some replacement, yes, the carrier task group will remain queen of the oceans.
                              Retreat hell, we just got here. Every Marine, a rifleman.

                              Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X