Weekly Poll Results - Of the 3, which had more of an influence on World War 2 ?

Please wait...

This article originated on the original FileFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. We apologize for this inconvenience. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

Published by PKM 9 years ago , last updated 1 year ago

 

Of the 3, which had more of an influence on World War 2 ?

Advanced Air tactics . 59.4% (66)
pr1.gifpr2.gifpr3.gif
s.gif
Advanced tank tactics . 29.7% (33)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Advanced submarine tactics . 10.8% (12)
pb1.gifpb2.gifpb3.gif
s.gif
Total: 111
Start: 02-13-2009 13:09
Last: 02-20-2009 03:58



 #1 - Posted by: ElMariachi045 (Member) on 02-14-2009 at 13:54

No question here. Naval air power killed the battleship; strategic bombing crippled German industry and killed the Luftwaffe. Close air support was instrumental in nullifying the concentrations of German armor and infantry in numerous critical battles including Normandy and the Stuka made the Blitzkrieg possible. Germany was the major submarine warfare-revolutionizing nation and they lost; tank tactic changed very little during the war.

 #2 - Posted by: Samboring (Member) on 02-14-2009 at 22:10

air - and space - define modern combat, so even if you discout the war itself, WWII can only be seen though the modern, i.e. the air lens. Speaking of Germany technology, the V2, their jets, and aerospace experiments have had a far greater impact on postwar technological development than their submarines or tanks, not that those didn't offer anything. Technology and the aerospace emphasis began in WWII, tanks and boats were mainly evolving to deal with air threats and to supplement them even during the war. Interestingly, the boat plane died in ww2 (despite howard hughs efforts) and meanwhile every nation was trying to get tanks to fly.... The air emphasis is pretty much undeniable.

 #3 - Posted by: SgtConlin (Member) on 02-15-2009 at 14:15

navy air power creamed the japenese. without the aircraft carrier, there was no hope of victory in the PTo

 #4 - Posted by: patsfanczar (Member) on 02-15-2009 at 17:50

Yeah, tank tactics did change MAJORLY during wwii. It went from slow, turretless mark 4's storming trenches to Fast moving, turreted killers in the panzer and tiger I using advanced tactics. Germany used pretty much only their tanks and luftwaffe in the blitz of europe. I believe that the air force had the most influence overall, followed very closely by tank tactics. The only reason i think the air tactics had more influence is because the allies had no real good tanks or armored tactics, but they used the air very well. The subs had little influence, germans taking out shipping lines was fine, but the allies answered to it, and other than minor logistics, subs back then weren't super important.

 #5 - Posted by: ElMariachi045 (Member) on 02-16-2009 at 12:35

And don't forget airborne radar and patrols killed the wolfpacks, too. Between the Great War and WWII tank tactics evolved a long ways; however nothing so revolutionary as air-projected sea power and strategic bombing.

 #6 - Posted by: Revan91 (Member) on 02-19-2009 at 12:40

If I had to pick, I would go with air tactics. But we are ignoring one basic concept. INFANTRY TACTICS. World War 2 was the first war that was fought the way modern war is fought today. Let's take it from the bottom. Prehistoric age: "My meat!" "No! My meat!" Killer gets all. free for all. Age of Civilization: Egypt, Alexander the Great's Empire, the Persian empire, The Roman Empire. One army on one side, one army on the other. Wears different uniforms, whoever has the most and/or better men wins. Totally organized. And this worked. It was the best war plan. Middle Ages: Same tactics. In fact it's practically exactly the same until guns come into play, in which case... High Middle Ages: NO MORE CASTLES because guns could just blow straight through them. And gunners had to be on the far end of combat. But it was still raw steel against flesh for the most part. Age of Imperialism: This is where the whole "one army on one side and one army on the other side" deal gets kind of stupid. His turn to shoot, his turn to shoot, his turn to shoot. Basically, whoever has the most men wins. It worked when there were no guns. But they needed more creativity. Similar tactics would continue until... First World War: Trench Warfare, which frankly, as brutal as it was, made a lot more sense than the fighting tactics used in the age of imperialism. Surprise attacks were done when possible, but It was basically a stalemate. One army attacked the trench until they were forced to retreat, then the defending army chases the routers into their trench, and fight them to a stand still until they have to retreat themselves, and the process begins all over again. Then... World War 2: Total guerrilla warfare. Use any cover possible, use absolutely anything you have at your disposal against your enemy. Wars continue to be fought in this way.

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!