How was land warfare different from WW1 and WW2?
One has to recall that the Second World War did not merely occur in Europe (ETO); there was also the war in the Pacific (PTO). Land warfare in the PTO had similarities to the ETO; however, application and objetives for outcomes had to be met much differently. In the ETO the Western Front (by way of example) was not contained to within 100 square miles of France - the front in the ETO was much more fluid and consisted of much more ground that had to be re-taken as a result of the Nazi sphere area of responsibility. In the PTO this same sort of activity occurs with much more water in between the objectives. Island hopping, Malaya, Burma, China made for this part of the Second World War a much more formidable task as in some regards the Japanese Forces were much more difficult to deal with than were their Nazi Allies. Then of course in the ETO we also had to a greater extent an Eastern Front that was much more vast and fluid as well (in mere comparison to the First World War). The Russian population fought admirably with a tenacity that hadn't been seen to that level even closely during WW I. Unlike WW I, the Eastern Front didn't capitulate due to a Revolution; the Russian Revolution was 23 years in the past when Corporal Hitler orders Operation Barbarossa. Tanks were faster and more manueverable. Pursuit Planes were much more advanced; artillery could lob heavier rounds further, Naval vessels of all nations could fire rounds from sea to shore with devastating accuracy. Radio communications were more reliable, and troops on all sides could move more swiftly due to basic truck advancements in motor technology. In addiition, weapons were manufactured at a much more speedy pace, and face it - Higgins Boats were the measure of success in both the ETO and PTO for the Western Allies. Think "fluid activity" - no battle field is ever stagnant; not during the First World War, and certainly not during the Second World War; but the fluid activity was able to reach a faster rate of objective even with the amount of territory that had to be gained in both ETO and PTO. Land warfare in WW II had major successes as well with Air Support; something that was only in the developmental phase during WW I. Just thoughts to ponder.
Similarities and differences in land warfare from WW1 and WW2?
Everything used to conduct the war was faster, more reliable, and more accurate. Armor was, on average, 10 times faster with much more firepower. Machine guns were lighter and more rapid fire - a great example is the German MG-42, which could fire 1,200 rounds per minute, which is nearly double the rate of the average WW1 heavy machine gun. Even heavier machine guns like the Browning .50 caliber machine gune (Ma Deuce) were commonly used in WW2. Submachine guns were common, whereas in WW1 they were just in development. Planes were more advanced and could drop more deadly ordnance on targets and strafe them with more powerful machine gun fire. These are just a few of the many changes to land based warfare. Many other weapons used in WW2 were present in WW1, but were more advanced, such as grenades, mortars, and flamethrowers. Infantry also had some anti-tank capabilities with US bazookas, German panzerfaust, and Soviet anti-tank rifles. There were a number of similarities in the conflicts as well. The average infantry rifle for many nations was the same in both wars, a good example being the British Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle. Many of the heavy machine guns of WW1 also saw action in WW2, another British example being the Vickers machine gun. As another answer noted, there were several instances of warfare involving entrenched or fortified forces, such as around Kursk during the last German offensive, or at the Siegfried Line during the last Western Allied push into Germany. Horses were also used routinely in both conflicts for carrying supplies and scouting. Most importantly, the casualties for both conflicts were appalling.
Will China’s lack of experience in modern warfare be a huge disadvantage if it goes to war against the US?
I wasn't going to answer this question but then it got flooded by people like Wuming Chan who copy and paste the same answer on 300 other US vs China questions and block comments.The answer is YesChina has not fought a modern war or even a guerilla war for a while. This lack of experience slowly withers away on the amount of experienced NCO’s and officers.The US has been fighting in dozens of conflicts in recent years and with conflicts comes the opportunity to learn from your mistakes.Lack of experience can often lead to a lackluster performance in all branches of a military and overconfidence.This lack of experience is not a major hindrance though due to the ever-evolving nature of modern warfare.
What are the differences between AirLand Battle and Network-centric warfare?
AirLand was developed to defeat the Soviet doctrine of massed waves of armor and mechanized infantry. The idea was that the outnumbered ground forces would engage the first attack to slow or stop it. This would cause the follow on forces to bunch up as they approached the front. Those second and Third waves would be simultaneously engaged from the air by bombers, attack aircraft, and helicopters. The point being to both destroy the enemy with firepower and prevent well organized follow on attacks.A great example of it in action was the invasion of Iraq. Multiple fast moving units invaded on a fairly broad front supported by air power. In order to prevent the capture of Baghdad the Iraqis placed the bulk of their best army units on the outskirts to defend the city. Once they were bunched up and had engaged the army the Allies launched over 1000 sorties a day against them. As a result no siege took place.
Will there ever be another land war like WWII?
I hope not, and the evidence suggests not. From my favorite website, Our World in Data, from Oxford University.War and Peace Most of the graphs are interactive, so you can add/subtract data, like countries, etc.Here is a graph showing state based wars, 1946–2007.If I take away colonial wars and civil wars (internal only, no outside help), it looks like this.And if you take away civil wars with foreign interventionAnd if you take another view, how many deaths occurred by decade (I got rid of everything but wars between states, no civil wars, etc), the picture is also improving.Also, the trend of deaths, military and civilian, as a % of population shows a recent, steady decline. Since 1950 really, but dramatically since the end of the Cold War.Now, having shown all that, I guess I have 2 observations, for what they are worth.With a more and more globalize economy, everyone needs everyone else. Resource poor countries but militarily strong don't have to take what they need anymore, with more and more of the economy being cross-dependent, everyone has something to trade. It isn't about coal and rubber anymore. Some countries have natural resources, others have large labor pools, others have intellectual property and resources. And with this cross dependency governments are more loathe to upset the apple cart. And especially with the financial markets so intertwined (this is a good and bad thing), a hiccup in a financial market half way around the world ripples clear around it.If there is another war, it won't be WW2 like, because weapons are more precise. You still need boots on the ground to win a war, but precision means you don't have to spool up a massive manufacturing effort to fight it. No more WW2 style “1000 bomber raids”. Gulf War 1 showed the speed and ferocity in which modern war can be conducted. To win, troops need to take and hold ground, but you don't need 7000 airplanes, and 6500 ships, including 1500 warships to pull off a D-Day.So I doubt there will be another ground war, but if there is, it will look nothing like WW2. If you said go, anywhere in the world, in 72 hours we would have a minimum of 18,000 fully armed, fully equipped troops on the ground with tanks, artillery, and carrier based aircraft that provide immediate support, with fleets of bombers all over the world, Tomahawk missiles.A ground war today would make WW2 look like WW1 in terms of the speed at which it would move.
What are the different between battle ground in WW2 compared with modern warfare today (without air support)?
I think that battlefields are only really influenced by the scope and range of the weapons and then the depth and quality of the intelligence of the enemy.Battle fields changed as the rifle replaced the bow and crossbow,As artillery was mobile and common place,As railways and supply systems allowed for longer and better support at the front,With the introduction of spotting balloons, and then aircraft the battlefield changed in its fluidity, and the ability to call in effective long range artillery.Without air support you cannot see that far and in this sense the battle field is largely the same scale EXCEPT for satellites. GPS has a huge effect on your own movement, friendly fire, and effective force deployment. The use of imaging satellites and drones also mean you can watch the enemy in real time and direct ordnance without them suspecting anything.It is weird to think that a decent medium range EMP strike would render all equipment back to a WWII level….
How did religious differences lead to redrawing borders on the Indian subcontinent after World War II?
it was mainly the British that did all this, and fled before they were killed, native Pakistanis were all Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and Muslims were a minority found only in the capital city and native Bangladesh were Tibet natives, plans were made far before 1947 partition and that land was chosen for politically advancement for Muslims, and the natives (of Pakistan and Bangladesh) all fled to modern day India including Muslim from the capital city( Buddhist converted back to Hindu and Muslim converted to Sikh and created a caste in Sikh religion) when there were no records or borders, the few families with land were resisting and fled during the partition after all, native Pakistanis and Bangladesh people today were actually followers of rebel leaders found in central India that were Muslims and wanted the partition, and these people filled the gaps of Pakistani and Bengali natives that were forced to leave (Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh, the few Muslim natives in the capital city also left too because they weren't followers of the rebel leader), the leaders wanted their number to grow and recruited millions of Muslims from inner cities in India ...its a hot mess, there's just as many Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan in India, nothing got accomplished, the British were just like coloring for fun on the world map and fled when they realized they created a mess so they don't get killed, there's still fighting in all Indian subcontinent countries and always was, have you ever met a group of people happy living with Muslims ??? the Muslims were lower caste Hindu converts in the south Asia from a couple of Arab preachers that came to the land and commit crime due to poverty...etc that's why they were hated, while the upper caste Hindus were integrating with White clans, its mainly caste hatred and always was, in the Indian subcontinent caste is the underlying problem for everything