Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

World War I to World War II CCOT

It's all in the title...
by

Jonathan Vo

on 9 April 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of World War I to World War II CCOT

1. Machine warfare superseded infantry warfare in effectiveness (most of the time, anyway). 2. HOWEVER, the infantryman would be the ultimate deciding factor on the battlefield, tanks or no tanks. 3. When America jumps in on Europe’s Allied bandwagon (usually through provocation from the Axis/Triple Alliance), Germany’s (the focal point of both these wars) defeat becomes palpable. (Declaring war on America is apparently as bad as invading Russia in wintertime.) (What are the tactics here, you ask? The tactics are AMERICA). In both Wars, it was America’s distance from Europe that allowed to not be invaded, and its productive capacity always held one of the keys to unlock the fate of the war. Analyze the different types and degrees of effectiveness of the different warfare tactics that were used from World War I (1914-1918) to World War II (1939-1945). 1. Trench warfare, originally used in the Great War, became obsolete in World War II (and for that reason, was never seen or used in WWII). 2. Naval warfare, originally taking a defensive role in the Great War (what with the convoy system), became critical in winning the Pacific and to a lesser extent, Atlantic theatre. 3. The haste of war quickened as its vehicles became greater from World War I to World War II, which allowed for more effective and devastating tactics to take form. QUESTION CHANGES CONTINUITIES In WWI: The advancement and development of the tank in World War I directly lead to the increase of its demand on the battlefield to help defend and attack in the trenches and on the field, which indirectly contributed to the infantryman’s slow secession from being the main deciding factor in warfare to the heavy and lumbering but capable tank. In WWII: The tank became even more vital in military planning and in battle, as well. Whether a rabble of Panzer tanks was a part of a blitzkrieg, or if three divisions from Patton’s Third Army was moving 100 miles up to Bastogne from the Siegfried Line to supplement McAuliffe’s (NUTS) men there during the Battle of the Bulge, or to help clear out the fanatically insane Japanese Army deeply entrenched in Okinawa by spewing fiery-napalm death, the tank had easily become a fundamental part of military strategy and a deciding factor in winning victories throughout both theatres of war on both sides. Throughout World War I, both sides had depended on massed groups of infantrymen to change the tide of war, usually supported by heavy artillery bombardment while sacrificing a great many of them to win each battle. Even when machine warfare became on the rise, both sides still hinged on the infantry to help win the war. In World War II, alongside tanks, the infantryman played a main role at times during major battles, especially at the Pacific islands, where tanks couldn’t land on the D-Days of island invasions and infantrymen had to do so, as well as make way for a beachhead despite heavy losses. In World War I, the sinking of the Lusitania, alongside a number of other factors including the Zimmermann telegram (look right), prompted all of America to support their active involvement in the War with the Triple Entente against the Triple Alliance. The attack on Pearl Harbor in December 7, 1941 sparked American hatred against the Japanese nation. A few hours later, America became an active belligerent in the war by declaring it on the Japanese. A few days later, Hitler declared war on America. A few years later, the Axis was decimated; don’t mess with America and its people with their can-do spirit! Its appearance in the Great War was a direct result of the dominance of defense of the armies’ respective positions. In World War II, the rising popularity and use of ground-raiding operations from aircraft and armored warfare made trench defense warfare as obsolete as the horse cavalry. In World War II, naval warfare’s deciding factor transitioned from the battleship to the aircraft carrier, leading to a transition in naval tactics from open sea ship-to-ship bombardment to extensive use of the aircraft carrier and its planes, and submarines, among other things. In the Great War, there was only one decisive naval battle: the Battle of Jutland (summer of 1916). And despite the fact that it saved the Allies from defeat in the entire war, it was the only major naval battle in the War (although it was admittedly the most important in history) and both sides claimed victory. Victory in naval warfare was also decided through ship-to-ship fighting, as well as how wide the bore of their batteries’ barrels were; they eventually got as thick as 16 inches in diameter, if not, thicker. In World War I, Allied commanders hinged on the infantry charge to turn the tide of war for almost ALL of their devised tactics, especially later in the war. In World War II, the advancement of aircraft, land vehicles, and sea vessels permitted them to become more swift and deadly, which allowed for greater and more effective tactics like the Island Storm Landings and the blitzkrieg and tank charges and the dreaded kamikaze to solidify and take over the once effective infantry charges from World War I. "From the Great War to the Total War"
A CCOT on Tactics
JONATHAN VO
Period 2-4/3/11 Note: Naval warfare doesn't include amphibious warfare, at least, not in this case, and in this case, it is an ENTIRELY different story; excellent examples include the Normandy Invasion in Europe, but the Storm Landings of the islands in the Pacific persistently used TRIphibious warfare. The Storm Landing; circulated around the concept of triphibious warfare, was basically an assault on an island through brutal attack from the air, on land, and pre-invasion artillery bombardments from sea; trihphibious warfare: HELL YEAH! WHY IT IMPORTANT:
The tank, once only a supporting unit of the infantryman, took the lead.
It's transition from a sideline unit to a primary asset was allowed due to its potential of a higher damage-to-personnel ratio that emanated from its use and allowed for less people to be potentially killed; a nice example would be in the Pacific Theatre during World War II, where tanks spewing fiery-death helped clear out the caves in places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima which were filled with angry Japanese soldiers. Operations like these could've possibly demanded for an appalling number of men demanded JUST for clearing out the caves; with tanks, the losses could be cut back considerably, if not, completely. WHY IT IMPORTANT:
Deslpite the wondrous capabilities of the tank, most battles would be decided on the stunning capabilities of Average Joes to win wars, no matter the cost. WHY IT IMPORTANT:
In Europe, before the twentieth century, America has taken a bit of a supporting role due to reluctancy
as well as a document claiming America's indpendence from European affairs (the name of which I have misplaced).
The only reason that it did was because its citizens/territories were attacked directly after involving itself with Europe's affairs. WHY IT IMPORTANT:
Because of the rapid change in how warfare was decided (from the infantryman to the vehicle), trench warfare would be useless against such fast, hard-hitting, and unit saving personnel. WHY IT IMPORTANT:
Naval warfare became a vital part of winning WWII because of the average fascist need for conquest, ESPECIALLY in the case of Japan, that included overseas conquest (which meant taking over some of Southeastern Asia for them Japaneses). The only way to push back the conquest would be by crippling its navy, and I don't think the Army is trained for that kind of warfare. WHY IT IMPORTANT:
Due to the advancement of the vehicle, much more aggressive tactics could be used to help further and promote the success of winning and crushing the enemy, whether it was from the air, on the sea, or on land, and allowed for less actual men to be needed in military operations, thus allowing for less deaths. (Well, theoretically of course; the fact is, the introduction of such cruelly effective and brutal machinery actually helped INCREASE the death toll in comparison to WWI; the fact that Japan actually brainwashed its people into thinking that America was full of evil, dirty, smelly pigs that will manipulate and rape them lead the Japanese populations on the islands to kill themselves. But in general, it was the personal vendettas between Japan and America, as well as Germany and Russia that resulted in such horrific amounts of death.) R U BORED? O RLY? TOO BAD! MOVING ON... ...SO... Need the Bathroom?
Want to get some Nibblies?
Full transcript