American bodies won WWI, pretending any different is Eurocentrism.
When the Allies marched into Berlin, that kinda looks like victory to me. France and England, or Rome and Persia, fought back and forth for centuries, but each war was a distinct act in a long drama.
The Baltics were on the periphery. And so were static forts. I may as well claim that since the Turks pushed the Aussies and Brits off of Gallipoli...oh wait, the naval bombardment there did about nothing to stop the Ottomans from emerging and pushing the invaders off the beaches. Next thing you'll tell me is that naval bombardments of positions is somehow different from artillery, when it's the same thing in effect.
I'm not saying artillery was useless. Never did. It was mostly good on the defensive, but not very useful on the offensive. Later in the war, when they could, in a more sophisticated way, use a barrage that advanced ahead of the infantry going over the top it was useful for attacks. But it was part of larger whole, as I have been telling you over and over.
"Static" machine gun turrets? lol. Machine guns were mobile, their positions were changed regularly to give better fields of fire, or so the enemy didn't get used to them being in one position.
Tanks were prone to breaking down, but armored vehicles were instrumental for the Allies at Amiens, but like I was saying, it was part of a larger strategy of attacking at a specific point then across a wide front.
So, debate what I am saying, not what you want to argue against. Stay on topic.
The Dutch made some and even the Germans. Prior to WW1. They were about. Czar Nicholas just made his on the border. In defense of the Germans. Big Bertha. Whoops.
Because they were in the Civil war and prior. Rendered obsolete by longer ranged artillery.
Although not completey obsolete because any fortifications were sooner back up in WW2 with even bigger guns, until the tech changed to missiles.
I have had enough of your irrational answers.
Artillery isn't static dumbass except when it's in a fortification.
But if your army has no range, flight was bullshit in WW1, it did facial damage. Because most attempts were shot down. Until bombers in WW2, and many of them got shot down. It had no real mechanisation. Trucks with no capacity, crank shaft, as larger armies still used cavalry and deployed numbers, against changing technology. Tanks faired terribly, stuck in the mud, but had more armour and mounted guns, as mines were sooner deployed. Guns were rifles and carbine, no automation. Unless mounted machine gun turrets.
The railway like the canal was still in full usage as capacity haulage.
You are using what. What is your main gun. Artillery. It gained range, bigger guns, and it also became mechanised.
Men won WW1. Yes many died because the tactics rapidly changed. They won with what.
You replied to me. And any reminiscing. Because I am not wrong. I never am it's something I'll debate. Until learning otherwise. It is painfully reminiscent today. There was no real Blitzkrieg. Territorial capture. It has faster led to the artillery seige. It is seemingly faster exchanging troops, and otherwise dragging on strategy.
Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
American bodies won WWI, pretending any different is Eurocentrism.
When the Allies marched into Berlin, that kinda looks like victory to me. France and England, or Rome and Persia, fought back and forth for centuries, but each war was a distinct act in a long drama.
The Baltics were on the periphery. And so were static forts. I may as well claim that since the Turks pushed the Aussies and Brits off of Gallipoli...oh wait, the naval bombardment there did about nothing to stop the Ottomans from emerging and pushing the invaders off the beaches. Next thing you'll tell me is that naval bombardments of positions is somehow different from artillery, when it's the same thing in effect.
I'm not saying artillery was useless. Never did. It was mostly good on the defensive, but not very useful on the offensive. Later in the war, when they could, in a more sophisticated way, use a barrage that advanced ahead of the infantry going over the top it was useful for attacks. But it was part of larger whole, as I have been telling you over and over.
"Static" machine gun turrets? lol. Machine guns were mobile, their positions were changed regularly to give better fields of fire, or so the enemy didn't get used to them being in one position.
Tanks were prone to breaking down, but armored vehicles were instrumental for the Allies at Amiens, but like I was saying, it was part of a larger strategy of attacking at a specific point then across a wide front.
So, debate what I am saying, not what you want to argue against. Stay on topic.
The Dutch made some and even the Germans. Prior to WW1. They were about. Czar Nicholas just made his on the border. In defense of the Germans. Big Bertha. Whoops.
Because they were in the Civil war and prior. Rendered obsolete by longer ranged artillery.
Although not completey obsolete because any fortifications were sooner back up in WW2 with even bigger guns, until the tech changed to missiles.
I have had enough of your irrational answers.
Artillery isn't static dumbass except when it's in a fortification.
But if your army has no range, flight was bullshit in WW1, it did facial damage. Because most attempts were shot down. Until bombers in WW2, and many of them got shot down. It had no real mechanisation. Trucks with no capacity, crank shaft, as larger armies still used cavalry and deployed numbers, against changing technology. Tanks faired terribly, stuck in the mud, but had more armour and mounted guns, as mines were sooner deployed. Guns were rifles and carbine, no automation. Unless mounted machine gun turrets.
The railway like the canal was still in full usage as capacity haulage.
You are using what. What is your main gun. Artillery. It gained range, bigger guns, and it also became mechanised.
Men won WW1. Yes many died because the tactics rapidly changed. They won with what.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_of_
https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/ww1-artillery.phpWorld_War_I
Read something stop quoting me crap.
You replied to me. And any reminiscing. Because I am not wrong. I never am it's something I'll debate. Until learning otherwise. It is painfully reminiscent today. There was no real Blitzkrieg. Territorial capture. It has faster led to the artillery seige. It is seemingly faster exchanging troops, and otherwise dragging on strategy.
Let me take a step back and ask a single question, mon ami, because you're getting increasingly angry that someone dare challenge you, and posting stupid shit about, for example, about cavalry, which in WWI was as valuable as your appendix, and when you're upset your ability to write coherent English degenerates and it is more and more difficult to figure out what the fuck you're even trying to say. A shit-ton of unconnected sentences and links don't construe an argument. You cannot....
Stay
on
Topic.
If America had not entered the war, who would have won?
Read the fucking links. I am not angry no. Just tired of your stupidity. I am speaking to somebody who cannot process information. It was rather obvious. But somehow you struggle? Tediously
Answer the question. Stay on topic. Who would have won the war without American Doughboys?