Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Levels of warfare
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 10th February 2010
warfare has developed over the years
slowly over the early years - centuries - decades over the later years
are they these the progression levels ::
greek hoplites with the use of mobile companion cavalry
heavy infantry with 18ft spears holding off the enemy whilst the mobile cavalry destroyed the flanks and rear of the opposition
roman legions - surely the ultimate - highly trained troops using the efficient short swords and shields to destroy barbarian warrior armys
after the roman empire - warrior tribes fighting mostly hand to hand - but learing from the romans and fighting behind shield walls
normans using cavalry and troops dressed in armour - mostly chain mail
heavy medieval cavalry
disturbed for 300 years by the english longbow
gunpowder and firearms - matchlock muskets (probably they could still at this time been decimated by the longbow!!)
musket volley fire - no individual bravery here - battalions firing thousands of rounds at one time - trained troops needed
breech loading rifles
breech loading rifles in the hands of mobile troops (ie the boer commandoes )
machine guns - at this time maxims and gattlings
machine guns in the first ww and heavy guns
mobile troops and tanks in ww2
heavy armour and guerilla warfare
helicopters - this has to be the ultimate ??
i have missed lots - what are they ??
st -
Message 2
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
i have missed lots - what are they Β
Possibly not what you're looking for, but I'd add:
Trains: radically transformed the strategy of warfare. For instance, during the American Civil War, the South should have had an advantage due to shorter lines of communication, yet the extensive rail network of the North allowed them to move troops between theatres quicker.
Industralization: like trains, this vastly changed the logistics of supply. It gave industrialized nations a huge advantage in weapons and materials.
Airpower: you've mentioned helicopters, but isn't air cover and ground support more important?
Radio: allowed much larger armies to be controlled and for artillery to support much larger areas than what they could see.
disturbed for 300 years by the english longbow Β
Maybe this is heresy, but was the bow actually the difference? In late medieval Europe, the emergence of confident infantry (English bowmen, Scottish and Flemish pikemen, Swiss halberdiers) turned the tables on the knights seemingly regardless of what weapon they used. -
Message 3
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
One thing. Tanks were first used in WW1
-
Message 4
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
i have missed lots - what are they ??..."
A bit Euro-centric, perhaps.
The mobility of the Golden Horde or the Persian horse archers, precursors of mobile tank warfare tactics. Attack the enemy in the rear, where he least expects it.
Getting back to Europe, Napoleonic divisional organisation.
The development of sea power, mostly in North Europe allowing war to span continents. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
The telegraph and then the long distance radio which allowed (And still does) the battlefield and the actions of the generals to be controlled more by the man in the Whitehouse or No 10 than by the man on the ground. Also before their arrival, it was not unknown for a RN Officer to be repremanded for engaging an enemy warship only tolearn that the war between their countries had been over for months. Today every movement and shot fired is broadcast back home and gone over by their Lords and Masters.
-
Message 6
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
'scuse me, but did anyone mention chariots? And artillery rockets which developed into quite fearsome weapons? Photography and deception?
Regards Spruggles. -
Message 7
Posted by Eamonn_Shute (U14223612) on Thursday, 11th February 2010
What about nukes? And chemical weapons? Admittedly not used very often though.
-
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 12th February 2010
cloudyj
Trains: radically transformed the strategy of warfare. For instance, during the American Civil War, the South should have had an advantage due to shorter lines of communication, yet the extensive rail network of the North allowed them to move troops between theatres quicker. Β
The Confederacy used their rail network to its fullest extent, shifting troops long distances just as the Union did. For example, in 1861 at the very first land battle at Bull Run/Manassas, Jackson's troops rode commandeered freight trains from the Shenandoah Valley to Manassass Junction and marched straight into the fight, turning the tide for the South.
This is why the Union army made a point of destroying Southern tracks and rail hubs. -
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 12th February 2010
The Confederacy used their rail network to its fullest extent,Β
I should probably have said the north could move troops "quickly" rather than implying quicker than the south. Sloppy wording on my behalf.
Without the vast rail network, moving Union troops between the Eastern and Western theatres would have been a logistical nightmare. Handing a big advantage to the South and the shorter lines of communication. At the same time as destroying southern railways, the Union's Western campaign often followed and relied on major rail and river routes.
Yes, the Confederacy did use railways too - I didn't intend to suggest they didn't. But "to its fullest extent" was less effective than the Union. That extent was hampered by the limited network and the complete inability (at the start of the war at least) to build railways, engines, rollingstock or even repair any of them. The rail network having been built almost exclusively by northerners.
Confederate cavalry could rip up Union supply lines and the Union would relay them very, very quickly. The loss of individual engines could hamper the Confederacy.
Your helpful correction still adds weight to my view that railwys were very important in changing the nature of warfare. As early as the 1840's Prussian generals were urging the state to build railways rather than fortresses - they'd guessed (correctly) that being able to move armies quickly was cheaper and more effective that static garrisons in fixed positions. -
Message 10
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 12th February 2010
trains - oh yes - under the heading of logistics - very important - the movement of troops and supplies
radio - in itself more important than the method of warfare - the ability to communicate what is happening - wellington says "send another 30 lads to Hougemont" - sorts the next attack out
nukes and chemical warfare - disqualified - its all over then !! lol
eurocentric maybe but its all i know
BUT - i am glad u have mentioned the Golden Horde as its my elite of the elite
the conquering of western europe by the mongols failed because a khan died - no other reason
up till the machine gun and heavy artillery - surely the mongols were the masters of the battlefield
waterloo against whoever would have been lost against the mobility and flexibility of the mongols
volleyfire and artillery couldnt hit what they couldnt see !!
thousands of troops would have been arrayed against an enemy that was miles behind and around - destroying their supply routes
st -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 12th February 2010
up till the machine gun and heavy artillery - surely the mongols were the masters of the battlefield Β
Mongol armies had been on the losing end of warfare for at least two centuries by Waterloo. -
Message 12
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
The finest warriors in history has to be the Apache
-
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
As a matter of interest, why does the U S name their attack Helecopters after Native American tribes?
-
Message 14
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
there has only been two attack helicopters named after native American tribes the Cheyennye and the Apache.
I suspose that these two attack helicopters were named after those two tribes because of the major military campiagns against them and the US took heavy casulaties fighting them. The Cheyenne were part of the Native American forces at the battle of the Little Big Horn. Under the battlefield command of Crazy House, the Cheyenne, Lakota and the Arapaho almost wiped out the 7th Cavalry.
The Apache (mainly the Chirichau band under Cochise and Goyaale (Geronimo (meaning One Who Yawns)) caused major headaches for the US Army between 1861 and 1886 in southern Arizona Territory. -
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
I thought there was more. I stand (Or sit) corrected. That reminds to dig out my copy of Red Skin Blue Coat. The history of the American Indian wars.
-
Message 16
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
I am currently reading a book about the Apache Wars in southern Arizona Territory, New Mexico northern Mexico. Next autumn I am going to be meeting Geriromo's great-grand daughter at the Fort Apache Reservation in Arizona. I have spoken to her a few times by phone.
-
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 13th February 2010
GF
The US Army has traditionally named all its helicopters after Native American tribes, not just the attack ones.
Indeed, the only exception to the rule has been an attack helicopter; the Cobra, which was intended to be an interim type, utilising the Iroquois's power train, until the AH-56 Cheyenne was in service.
LW
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.