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, Sherman’s 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 1930’s 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.