With each passing year, the practical lessons of World War II become less relevant. The great war that defined our understanding of mechanized warfare and airpower was fought with technology that is now almost a century old. Precision weapons, universal motorization, advanced airpower, and omnipresent surveillance have radically altered even the smallest tactical interactions. Yet it remains a source of fascination, and year after year generates insightful new research.
A number of things were happening at various levels through these periods that affected the evolution of warfare. At the tactical level, matchlock muskets were slowly replaced with flintlocks (at first called firelocks) as first the escorts for wagon loads of gunpowder were given the new flintlocks so that the infantry didn't have to carry lit matches while near the gunpowder. Pikemen were eliminated as more flintlock armed soldiers filled the ranks and were given bayonets to put on the ends of their flintlocks to defend against cavalry. Soldiers carrying matchlocks had lined up in their formations with as much as three feet between individual soldiers so that they didn't get in each others way while executing the complicated loading and firing process. Flintlock armed soldiers could stand shoulder to shoulder and rear ranks could stand closer and place the barrels of their weapons between the heads of the soldiers in front of them. Tighter formations meant more bullets could be fired at the enemy and the use of iron ramrods meant the bullets could fit a little more tightly as they were forced down the barrel and then when fired the round flew out of the barrel at higher velocity which translated into greater range. The number of fortresses increased as each nation tried to create a network of defended supply depots to support their armies in the field rather than see the army slowed down by having to carry all of its supplies for an extended campaign along with it. Coalition building evolved from the use of a large number of essentially independent military contractors to provide troops for hire, to the creation of modern nation states and principalities which raised 'national' armies that could fight alongside the armies of allied nations. There were indeed many, many changes in how wars were fought across this period.
Soldiers armed with matchlocks frequently carry up to 12 loads of gunpowder in wooden cylinders hanging from a belt worn over the shoulder. Each cylinder holds the powder needed for one shot.
It's definitely worth studying, but was a very different kind of conflict. It quickly got out of the control of anyone involved, strategy was often focused more on paying and feeding the army than on any objective, allies pursued their own objectives separately, etc.
You do see things start to change with the Franco-Spanish War though, which was of course related: fighting on four separate fronts, where each has a definite effect on the other.
Thanks for responding and points taken ! Many observers have (rightly) found the Thirty Years War as a turning point in the history of Europe : scale of the conflict, scale of civilian losses, Catholic states (France) supporting protestant ones (Sweden), end of “Great Captains” such as Wallenstein, England’s active strategy of preventing the emergence of a continental power, end of a revival of the dream of a Holy Germanic - Roman Empire… and last but not least consecration of Nation States with the treaty of Westphalia.
A number of things were happening at various levels through these periods that affected the evolution of warfare. At the tactical level, matchlock muskets were slowly replaced with flintlocks (at first called firelocks) as first the escorts for wagon loads of gunpowder were given the new flintlocks so that the infantry didn't have to carry lit matches while near the gunpowder. Pikemen were eliminated as more flintlock armed soldiers filled the ranks and were given bayonets to put on the ends of their flintlocks to defend against cavalry. Soldiers carrying matchlocks had lined up in their formations with as much as three feet between individual soldiers so that they didn't get in each others way while executing the complicated loading and firing process. Flintlock armed soldiers could stand shoulder to shoulder and rear ranks could stand closer and place the barrels of their weapons between the heads of the soldiers in front of them. Tighter formations meant more bullets could be fired at the enemy and the use of iron ramrods meant the bullets could fit a little more tightly as they were forced down the barrel and then when fired the round flew out of the barrel at higher velocity which translated into greater range. The number of fortresses increased as each nation tried to create a network of defended supply depots to support their armies in the field rather than see the army slowed down by having to carry all of its supplies for an extended campaign along with it. Coalition building evolved from the use of a large number of essentially independent military contractors to provide troops for hire, to the creation of modern nation states and principalities which raised 'national' armies that could fight alongside the armies of allied nations. There were indeed many, many changes in how wars were fought across this period.
Didn't know that was why flintlocks became widespread, fascinating!
I trained for a day with a matchlock and found it almost amusing to be carrying a lit match while wearing essentially a dozen gunpowder bombs.
Wild - real grenades?
Soldiers armed with matchlocks frequently carry up to 12 loads of gunpowder in wooden cylinders hanging from a belt worn over the shoulder. Each cylinder holds the powder needed for one shot.
Ah of course, I misread what you said at first.
Supply chain, communications, advancing technologies and the need for alliances due to the economics of deploying the means of war.
Interesting thanks ! What about the Thirty Years War ? A major conflict at the center of Europe.
It's definitely worth studying, but was a very different kind of conflict. It quickly got out of the control of anyone involved, strategy was often focused more on paying and feeding the army than on any objective, allies pursued their own objectives separately, etc.
You do see things start to change with the Franco-Spanish War though, which was of course related: fighting on four separate fronts, where each has a definite effect on the other.
Thanks for responding and points taken ! Many observers have (rightly) found the Thirty Years War as a turning point in the history of Europe : scale of the conflict, scale of civilian losses, Catholic states (France) supporting protestant ones (Sweden), end of “Great Captains” such as Wallenstein, England’s active strategy of preventing the emergence of a continental power, end of a revival of the dream of a Holy Germanic - Roman Empire… and last but not least consecration of Nation States with the treaty of Westphalia.
“With each passing year, the practical lessons of World War II become less relevant.”
Good.
Can we get rid of the Puzzle Palace now? We could just retask it as a retirement community, an efficiency anyone can admire.
It would be as seamless Dr. Jill putting Joe to bed.