THE CHANGING NATURE OF WARFARE

1
THE CHANGING NATURE OF WARFARE

• 1845 - 1991

2
THE NATURE OF WARFARE MEANS - -

• The one constant all wars involve men
  (sometimes women eg USSR WWII) fighting each
  other.
• What changes
• - short, prolonged wars.
• Intensity, ferocity
• Organisation/structure of fighting forces.
• The way the war is fought weapons, tactics,
  strategy, conventional V unconventional, war of
  movement V war of position
• The experiences of combatants (and civilians0
• The rules of the game (codes written or unwritten
  which limit violence)
• Outcomes what determines who wins and who loses?

3
FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE THE NATURE OF WARFARE
4
RESOURCES /ECONOMIC MUSCLE

• This is fundamental in determining the nature of
  war the wealth and material resources of the
  combatants it influences
• The size of the armies
• How long they can keep fighting
• The kinds of weapons and equipment they can
  produce (technology).

5
IMPACT ON OUTCOMES (who wins, who loses)

• It can be decisive especially in protracted
  (long) wars
• This is why economic warfare is so important
  denying the enemy resources while maximising
  yours eg German U boat campaign WWII, Shermans
  campaign in the South during the civil war
• An imbalance of economic resources can be
  critical to ones sides victory eg North V South
  American Civil War, eg it was all important in
  deciding the outcome of WWII the economic
  resources of the Allies (USA, GB, USSR) was vital
  in the defeat of Nazi Germany

6
BUT -

• It might not be decisive
• In short, sharp wars economic power might not be
  a factor eg the economic power of GB and France
  combined was greater then Germany in 1940 but
  Germany won in 10 weeks.
• Economic factors might be countered by others eg
  superior strategy and tactics (Germany 1940),
  will to win (Vietcong V the economic might of USA
  in the Vietnam War)

7
TECHNOLOGY

• The level of technology plays a vital part in
  determining the nature of a war it is the main
  focus of the breadth coursework.
• It in turn depends on the level of economic
  development of the combatants.
• It determines - - -
• The kinds of weapons which can be used (military
  technology) eg the industrial revolution
  (economic) enabled the production of new weapons
  like heavy artillery, tanks, planes.
• The way war is waged by advances in non
  military technology eg railways, roads, engines,
  telegraph and communications, intelligence
  breakthroughs. All can have a dramatic effect on
  the way war is fought eg the invention of
  railways enabled massive armies to be moved in
  WWI, the development of the telegraph enabled
  commanders to exert more control over armies.
• The nature of the fighting eg the development
  of machines guns and rapid fire artillery in WWI
  determined that it would be a war of position
  static trench warfare because the weapons and
  non military technology favoured the defence
  but then the development of the tank and air
  power in the 1930s determined that WWII would be
  a war of movement with rapid advances and
  breakthroughs.

8
EFFECT ON OUTCOMES

• Can be decisive in deciding who wins and who
  loses especially if one side has a clear
  technological advantage eg USA development of
  atomic weapons was decisive in the defeat of
  Japan 1945, British technological dominance was
  decisive in most colonial wars of the 19th.
  Century.
• But it need not be the critical factor others
  may be more important in some situations eg in
  1940 Germany did not have a technological
  advantage over France and Britain their 10 week
  victory was due to superior leadership, tactics
  and morale. eg in the Vietnam War the USA had a
  massive technological advantage over the
  Vietnamese yet lost due to the effects of
  morale, will to win, public opinion.

9

• In the end it is how the technology is used and
  applied which is decisive as the Germans did in
  1940.Superior weapons might not help if there is
  poor leadership and no will to win.
• Also war itself leads to rapid advances in
  technology the pressures of war force
  combatants to finds new ways of winning eg the
  development of the tank and fighter planes in
  WWI.
• In such cases the development of technology tends
  to even itself out - one side gets a slight lead
  then the other one catches up (arms race).
• This can lead to stalemate or victory if one
  side is able to apply the technology better and
  also take the lead in other areas such as
  leadership or morale.

10
LEADERSHIP

• Can have a massive impact on the nature of war
• In modern times armies and forces have had a
  pyramid structure below are the ordinary
  soldiers

Junior officers/ middle ranking leaders
11

• Leadership can be important because
• The political leaders tend to set the broad broad
  political and strategic goals of the conflict eg
  Hitler WWII
• The Generals develop and apply strategy and
  tactics to achieve the strategic goals at
  operational level.
• The middle ranking commanders operate at the
  tactical level and are sometimes at the cutting
  edge of the conflict.
• All of these clearly affect the experience of war
  of ordinary soldiers and the nature of the
  conflict

12
EXAMPLES

• It is often argued that the lack of imagination
  and skill of the senior commanders in WWI
  determined that it would remain stuck in the
  stalemate of trench warfare.
• Up to 1942 the British army had suffered crushing
  defeats at the hands of the Germans (on land)
  its morale was rock bottom. The leadership of
  Montgomery transformed it his tactical skill
  and charisma meant it never lost after 1942.

13
EFFECTS ON OUTCOMES

• Many see leadership as the key factor in
  determining victory economic power and
  technology have to be applied and used correctly
  this is the job of leadership eg the way German
  generals in 1940 used tanks and aircraft in new
  Blitzkrieg tactics determined the outcome.
• Brilliant leadership can counteract an enemies
  lead in economic power and technology eg General
  Giap - the general who led North Vietnam to
  victory against the French and then the USA.

14
BUT - -

• We inevitably tend to put the praise or blame for
  victory or defeat on the high profile leaders but
  the real outcome might be determined by other
  less visible factors like economic wealth and
  technological advances.
• The commanders might also be the victims of the
  circumstances in which they find themselves eg
  Haig is criticised for his tactics in the Battle
  of the Somme but what else could he have done?
• Leadership is more then just the ideas and
  decisions of the top commanders eg in the British
  army in WWI the senior commanders were often
  incompetent but the middle and lower ones were
  superb.

15
Doctrine, Strategy and Tactics

• Doctrine all armies and commanders enter a war
  with definite ideas about what it will be like
  and how to fight it this will affect the nature
  of the war itself eg at the start of WWII the
  French commander (Gamelin) assumed that the war
  would be a repeat of WWI with the advantage with
  the defenders so he abandoned attack and
  concentrated on stern defence. He was wrong and
  this determined that this battle would be short
  and catastrophic for France
• Strategy the overall plan for the war devised
  by political and military leaders. This can have
  a big impact on the nature of the war eg German
  war plans in 1914 (The Schlieffen Plan)
  determined that the war would largely be fought
  in France and would result in trench warfare.
• Tactics the actual method of fighting eg the
  German development of Blitzkrieg tactics in 1940
  determined that unlike WWI the Second World war
  would be a war of movement.

16
EFFECTS ON OUTCOME

• Some would say that this is decisive allied to
  leadership because it is how men, weapons and
  technology are used which is important superior
  strategy and tactics will bring victory eg
  superior German tactics in March 1918 led to
  their breakthrough and their Blitzkrieg tactics
  in 1940 led to the defeat of France NOT superior
  technology or weapons.

17
BUT -

• Even superior tactics and leadership might not
  guarantee victory at least in the long run eg
  throughout the Second World War the German army
  was better led and tactically superior to the
  Allies yet they lost because they were
  overwhelmed by superior Allied wealth, manpower
  and technology

18
COMPOSITION OF ARMIES

• This can have a big impact on the nature of the
  conflict.
• Armies can be (a) professional made up of
  volunteers who join for a career and will have a
  certain level of expertise (b) part time -
  territorial or militia who are then drafted in
  the event of war and who will have a level of
  expertise (c) conscript forcibly drafted before
  or during the conflict with no level of expertise
  (d) volunteers during the conflict for
  patriotic reasons no level of expertise but
  have enthusiasm

19
EXAMPLES

• The British army of WWI was a mixture began in
  1914 as a small professional army joined by
  territorials but then swelled to millions be
  volunteers and later conscripts.
• The exact mixture of armies can have an impact on
  how the fighting is conducted eg one reason for
  the much criticised frontal attacks on trenches
  at the Somme 1916 and Ypres in 1917 is that the
  inexperienced and untrained volunteers who made
  up the bulk of the British army could not be
  expected to do anything else.

20
EFFECTS ON OUTCOME

• Generally speaking professional armies are
  considered superior and more likely to bring
  victory eg in the Falkland war 1982 the British
  army was heavily outnumbered by the Argentinians
  - but the Brits were skilled full time
  professionals and the Argentineans were raw
  conscripts no contest.

21
BUT -

• Professionals do not always bring victory because
  
• They can often be too few in number eg the BEF of
  1914 was tiny compared to the massive German army
  - mostly conscripts. It was wiped out.
• Enthusiasm can sometimes be more important than
  professionalism eg the best units in the British
  army in WWI were often the volunteers.

22
ORGANISATION / LOGISTICS

• The organisation and efficiency of armed forces
  can a have a big impact on the kind of war fought
  and also its outcome.
• Logistics the art of supplying armies with
  weapons, food etc and can be vital to how it
  fights.
• If both are inadequate in one army then it is
  likely to be defeated a well organised and
  supplied force has a massive advantage eg it is
  usually argued that these were the critical
  factors in the Prussian defeat of France in
  1870-71

23
MORALE / WILL TO WIN

• Can have a big impact on the way the war is
  fought and its duration.
• It is the motivation soldiers (even commanders)
  have to actually fight (risking their lives) and
  win. If one side has it and the other does not
  the conflict can be short and one sided eg in
  1940 the German army did have it the French did
  not 10 week German victory.
• If both sides have it the war can be prolonged,
  bloody and intense eg Germany V Russia 1941-45.
• If neither side has it the war can be prolonged
  and indecisive eg the long truces on the Western
  Front in WWI

24
EFFECTS ON OUTCOME

• Some say this is the decisive factor a strong
  will to win and high motivation can overcome
  other factors like lack of technology and wealth
  eg the Vietnamese V USA in the Vietnam War, the
  fanaticism of Japanese troops in WWII.
• Others say that while motivation and will to win
  are important and can make a conflict more
  intense they cannot overcome deficiencies in
  other areas like wealth and technology eg both
  Japan and Germany were better motivated than
  Western Allied troops in WWII but they still
  lost.

25
IDEOLOGY AND CULTURE

• Related to morale and will to win some
  societies or cultures or political ideologies
  have a more aggressive attitude to war and
  conflict and this can have a big impact on the
  way the war is fought eg the Nazis race ideology
  determined that the war in Russia against
  inferior Slavs would be more brutal and bloody
  then elsewhere eg the Japanese military code of
  honour in WWII (to surrender is shaming)
  determined that they would fight fanatically and
  often to the last man.
• Effects on outcome can give one side an
  advantage if its men are more willing to make
  sacrifices but cannot overcome great
  disparities in wealth and technology Japan lost.

26
PUBLIC BACKING / SUPPORT

• In some modern wars the attitude of the general
  public expressed through opinion polls, the
  media etc can have an impact on the scale and
  intensity and duration of the conflict eg the
  collapse of public backing for the Vietnam war in
  the USA in the late 1960s is often given as one
  reasons for the US defeat and withdrawal.
• The need to keep public opinion on board can also
  limit a conflict because of the need to keep
  casualties to a minimum eg Afghanistan today

27
BUT -

• This factor only applies in Western democratic
  societies with a well developed public opinion.
• In other societies public opinion can be ignored
  or manipulated by propaganda and state control of
  the media.

28
CONCLUSION

• No one factor is absolute in determining the
  nature and outcome of a war.
• The nature of war is determined by a combination
  of all or some of these factors.
• In any one conflict one or more might be deemed
  to be critical eg technology in WWII but all
  must be taken into account when considering the
  nature and outcome of an individual conflcit.