In this article we'll discuss Alfred Thayer Mahan's theories on force projection, Alfred Bruchmuller's registration correction prediction method, and the forward basing concept. These theories were crucial to determining which forces would be successful against which objectives during the war. We'll also discuss the impact of the new tank technologies on the battlefield, and how these innovations affected the battle.
In the early twentieth century, American naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan published two volumes on the role of sea power in world politics. His book, The Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783, was widely influential and won him the presidency of the American Historical Association in 1902. Mahan's theories on the use of naval force projection found wide readership in Europe and sparked an arms race before World War I.
Mahan's theories on naval force development and force projection were influenced by his own experiences as a British admiral. He was worried about Germany's growing naval power and warned against Germany upsetting the international balance of power. His theories about the use of naval forces also informed the grand strategy of the Allies. Mahan's theories helped shape German naval armament under Wilhelm II.
In World War I, the Germans employed the Pulkowski Method to calculate tactical surprise. They used this method to target enemy positions without registering the guns and preserving the element of surprise. This was followed by an infantry assault using cutting-edge infiltration tactics. They were equipped with heavy weapons such as machine guns, grenades, mortars, and flamethrowers.
The problem with this approach was that it restricted infantry movements. The infantry had to move up the hillside and the artillery had to fire over broken ground. These tactics forced infantry commanders to make centralized tactical decisions. Additionally, the communication system of the time was not up to par, resulting in slow response times. The defender was able to take advantage of roads and rail networks to move forward.
Theories of force projection and forward basing are based on historical examples. These examples span the 19th century, where many actions were considered projections of force. For example, the 1864 Bombardment of Kagoshima and the Boxer Rebellion were both examples of projections of force. In addition, the British Royal Navy and the U.S. Navy both projected forces from home bases.
Despite the limitations of this historical example, it illustrates the inherent risks and dangers associated with America's forward-deployed military posture. In particular, the presence of large U.S. bases overseas creates unnecessary cost and risk. They are also an unnecessary addition to the security risk that comes with forward-deployed ground forces.
The Eastern Front was an area of war in Europe during World War I. It was the site of numerous battles, including the Battle of the Somme. This battle highlighted the resilience of the French and British, as well as their ability to project a massive army to the western front. However, the Battle of the Somme also triggered a leadership crisis in Germany. Hindenburg assumed supreme command of the war, while Ludendorff took control of domestic politics.
In early August 1914, Germany declares war on Russia. The Russians responded by mobilizing troops to enter the war with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Russians used their protection of Serbia as a pretext to enter the war. However, the Germans feel obliged to fight the Russians because of their alliance with Austria and France. This leads to the first actual combat on the Eastern Front. This battle involves two Russian armies.
The German response to Operation Michael marks the end of the First World War. On 21 March 1918, the German Army began Operation Michael on the Western Front. The move aimed to crush the Allies before American troops arrived in France. In the process, the Germans regained numerical superiority over the Allies.
However, the German response to Operation Michael was ultimately a failure. The British Fifth Army was severely mauled, and the German army sustained heavy losses. The Germans lost 239,000 men in total. These losses were difficult to replace. Moreover, the Germans failed to make a decisive breakthrough, which would have required further resources.