Battle of the Somme

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'd say that WW1 is uniquely meaningless, given the incredible lack of adaptation shown by the commanders. How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

[C-Mag]

I'd say that WW1 is uniquely meaningless, given the incredible lack of adaptation shown by the commanders. How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

[Speaker to Animals]

How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

Difficult to put a number on something like that.

I think artillery was the worst killer, though.

They each had heavy artillery but no mechanized units that could get out there and neutralize them. No airborne. No tanks until well into the thing.

[ssu]

I'd say that WW1 is uniquely meaningless, given the incredible lack of adaptation shown by the commanders. How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

I'd say far less than did the same thing in WW2.

When during an important assault the Russian way to clear a minefield would be simply to put men to trample it, what is so different from the attitudes of WW1?

Basically the military deaths (not counting civilians) in the Eastern Front is equal to the size of all military deaths in WW1. Good example of size comparison.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe they were fresh out of Finns?

[de officiis]

For those of you who remain interested in WW 1, Dan just did a podcast about it with the All American Legacy Podcast/History of the 82nd Airborne.

https://allamericanlegacy.podbean.com (Episode 6)

[TheReal_ND]

Is it good?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'd say that WW1 is uniquely meaningless, given the incredible lack of adaptation shown by the commanders. How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

I'd say far less than did the same thing in WW2.

When during an important assault the Russian way to clear a minefield would be simply to put men to trample it, what is so different from the attitudes of WW1?

Basically the military deaths (not counting civilians) in the Eastern Front is equal to the size of all military deaths in WW1. Good example of size comparison.

That's a good point. Even having listened to Dans series on the Ostfront twice, I never really think about the Russian side.

I'm willing to rank them both as equally meaningless then. The greater tragedy still belongs to WWI though, simply because it was so avoidable. If Kaiser Wilhelm isn't so inept, or the The ridiculous assassination doesn't happen, or the whole world changes.

So much of our world revolves around a few stupid triggers and treaties that it's impossible to imagine otherwise. Really, you can call WWI the moment that the world began to end. (It's just a matter of time now)

[de officiis]

Is it good?

Still listening to it.

[Smitty-48]

I'd say that WW1 is uniquely meaningless, given the incredible lack of adaptation shown by the commanders. How many millions charged into machine gun fire, even when it was known to be futile?

Grumpy, you have got to be the stupidest fucking moron of all time when it comes to shooting your mouth off about anything military, World War One is literally the most innovative and adaptive war in human history, the entire world, starting with warfare, can be divided into before World War One and after World War One, almost everything in the contemporary warfighting paradigm, is a result of innovation in order to adapt to World War One.

They entered World War One as Napoleonic armies fighting Napoleonic warfare, and came out the otherside with modern warfare as we know it today, the most central innovations of course, being air warfare, mechanized warfare, and combined operations.