Words: 2438
My research consists of information about important battles of World War II where the outcome was either a result of one army simply outnumbering the other with soldiers, support and resources. Or the outcome was purely because of careful planning, the use of clever strategies or the use of advanced technology. I also researched information about technology that changed warfare and gave the army that discovered it first an advantage over its enemy, and if it was not for this technology would the outcome of an important battle or campaign where it was used be different.
When The United States of America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered and this ended the war. Would the war have carried on if The USA did not have this technology and if they did not use the bombs? Many countries fought the German army at the same time, why did it these countries take so long to defeat Germany when they outnumbered the Germans by a huge amount. Was it because Germany had more advanced technology and used better strategies? If the German Army had more soldiers and resources such as fuel or food, for specific battles, would these battles outcomes be changed?
And in time would these results of these battles have had an impact on the outcome of the War? Page 1 Literature Review Websites: The Battle of the Bulge This website examines Hitter’s decision to go on the offensive after identifying the soft underbelly of the Allies military, they attack the poorly defended 90 kilometer front in the Redness. This was a very important battle in World War II and with this information I will conclude if the outcome of the battle was as a result of technology and strategy. “The German leader, Doll Hitler, had been planning his last great offensive in the west”.
Cross, 2011-02-17) World War Two: How the Allies Won This article discusses how the Allied Forces defeated the German war machine with their well planned strategies and the use of their advanced weapon systems. With this information I can identify why the outcome of World War Two ended the way it did. “USA and Brittany finally decided to pool their very large bomber forces in a Combined Offensive against the German economy’. (Every, 2011) D-Day: Beachhead This website explains how meticulous planning and strategy made D-Day one of the greatest invasions of World War II.
I will use this information to see how strategy effected the outcome of his invasion and if it could’ve been different. Why they invaded those beachheads what advantage did it give the allies. “The Americans had come to Europe to finish the war as quickly as possible, and this meant taking the shortest, most direct route to Germany’. (Anderson, 2011-02-17) British Bombing Strategy in World War Two This article discusses how the Royal Air Force developed a strategy that would make their bombing on Germany more effective and cripple their factories so that Germany could not supply their armies with rations and ammunition.
I will use this article to see how this strategy affected the outcome of WWW. “The RAFF targeted factories to cripple the supply chain of ammunition to the German fronts”. (Gibbers, 2011) Page 2 Page 2 World War Two – The Story of the Atomic Bomb This article contains information regarding the after effects of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and how these two bombs affected the outcome of the war. This information will be help me answer my question, and if this weapon technology affected the outcome of the war. “The atomic bomb forced Japan to surrender”. (Richard Rhodes, 2006) Blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg means “lightning war”. Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Juddering. “Used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back” (Truman, 2003) Books: Weapons of World War II This book discusses the weapons and vehicles of all the countries that fought in World War II.
It offers an excellent overview of the diverse weaponry used by both the Axis Powers and the Allies and which weapons were most effective. I will use this information to provide insight on how these weapons had an effect on the outcome of the war. “Assault Rifles – these forced a complete redesign of the modern infantry tactics, as well as the logistics to support them”. (Allude 2010 : 78) Weapons and Technology of WI Page 3 This book discusses how technology produced a revolutionary effect on warfare in WWW, rather than Just provide an incremental improvement in war fighting capability.
It lists all the major technological advances during WWW and how it changed the warfare. “The introduction of slanted armor plate in the T-34 tank completely revolutionized tank warfare”. (Carlton 2002 : 213) Film: History of World War II This documentary examines the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Nazis, the area bombing strategy of the Allies, and the territorial aspirations of an industrialized Japan. This documentary contains rarely seen and unforgettable archive footage and the secrets of each army. I will use this source to help me answer my research question. (Golden, 1999) Article:
World War II Technology that Changed Warfare – Radar and Bombsites This article discusses how Radar and Bombsites were developed and how these two new technologies changed warfare and the outcome of WWW. It gives information about which country first developed it and who they used it against and how it gave them an advantage in the war. “Bombsites technology allowed for more accurate bombing runs and precision targeting of military and industrial locations”. (Foley 2011 : 1) The True Strategy of Blitzkrieg Page 4 This article examines the war tactics used by the German army, I will use this information to see it affected the warfare. It harnessed the firepower and mobility of the German panzer divisions through aggressive leadership at both the strategic and tactical level”. (Wait 2008 : 3) Processing of Findings The German army was being attacked by many countries simultaneously. So why did it take so long for them to defeat the German army? It was because Germany’s war technology at that time was more advanced than the other armies, but it was also because of how the German war machine used these technologies. “The Germans harnessed their advanced technology to the best use”.
Truman, 2003) They wanted to use it in a way where it would be the most effective in battles for their soldiers, so they invented the “Blitzkrieg”. “It harnessed the firepower and mobility of the German “Stuck” dive bombers and panzer divisions” (Wait 2008 : 3). The “Blitzkrieg” was based on speed, co-ordination and movement. It was designed to hit hard and move on instantly. Its aim was to surprise the enemy and create confusion. The Germans would first send in their “Stuck” dive bomber planes to shock the enemy into cover so they could not see what was coming.
While this is all happening the German tanks loud move in fast destroying enemy armor and obstacles that infantry could not and lay a safe path for the infantry to move in. By the time the German infantry have moved in it is too late for the defending army to take defensive actions and thus making it easy for the German army to win the battle. This makes it clear of how the German war machine won most of its battles and took so long to defeat because of their technology and strategy. Page 5 The Allied landings in Normandy on 6 June 1944 were among the most desperate undertakings in the history of war.
Amphibious operations against an enemy in a throng defensive position will almost always lead to heavy casualties and defeat, how did the allies manage to secure the beachheads when they were heavily fortified with obstacles and minefields, and covered by machine-gun and mortar emplacements. Was it was the careful planning that went into this operation such as which beachheads should they attack, when should they attack? Or was it simply because the allies sent in thousands of soldiers which the few hundred German soldiers could not defend the whole beach against them. The estimated casualty amount for the allies on 6 June 1944 is 300000 soldiers and many more wounded” (Anderson, 011-02-17). The allies secured the beachheads because of the amount of soldiers they sent in. In a personal testimony by Sergeant James Troy Howard who landed on Utah beach, he says “The only reason we took those beachheads is because the German machine gunners could not reload and change their barrels fast enough to kill the next platoon of men landing on the beach. We had too many men for their bullets”. (Anderson, 2011-02-17).
In the film “History Of World War II” it is said that “If the German forces defending the Normandy beachheads had air support, the allies would have been slaughtered and the entire operation a failure”. Golden, 1999). During World War II the Allies realized that air power could be decisive in winning the war and could help to prevent the slaughter of ground forces. So the Allies launched a strategic bombing campaign. “This campaign relied hugely on radar and without this technology they could not hit the specific bomb sights. ” (Foley S. , 2011) They would target strategic positions such as Hitter’s V rocket sites, oil targets.
The beginning of the campaign was hugely successful it helped the ground forces because the bombing was starving the German soldiers of fuel, supplies and ammunition. The British bomber force could bring about the collapse of Germany by April 1944″. (Gibbers, 2011) . After seeing the effects of the strategic bombing the US army fully Joined in on the campaign which meant the campaign was even more powerful. If it was not for the technology of radar or the strategy of the precise bombing, the German forces would have been respelled like they should of, this could’ve had a big impact on the outcome of the war.
Page 6 Near the end of the war, Hitler planned one more offensive. This battle was called “The Battle of the Bulge”. His plan was to get his German armies to drive through the rest of the Redness to cross the River Mouse, then sweep north to retake Brussels and seize the port of Antwerp. Cut off from their American allies, the British Second and Canadian First Armies would be enveloped and destroyed. The Western alliance against the Axis would collapse, freeing Germany to deal with the mounting pressure being exerted on the Eastern Front by the Red Army.
If this offensive had been successful for the German army it may well have changed the outcome of the war. The Germans used very clever strategies, before they attacked they sent in soldiers reseed as US army soldiers to cut the telephone wires to create mass confusion between the US army. They kept the battle plan top secret so that they would take the Allies by surprise. When they eventually attacked with the combination of surprise, confusion and “Blitzkrieg” war tactic, it allowed them to dominate the battle at first. Their Blitzkrieg came too halt, they did not have the fuel to keep their tanks moving and fighting and after that supplies stopped coming in, they had limited ammunition and soldiers started freezing and starving to death. ” (Cross, 2011-02-17) . The battle took a turn for the worse for the Germans, and they started retreating and ended up losing the battle. If the German army had been respelled and/or had more soldiers, it could have been devastating for the allied forces and maybe changed the outcome of the war. When the USA dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it changed warfare into what it is today.
These bombs caused Japan to surrender, which ended World War II. If it was not for this technology the war would have dragged on and the outcome possibly changed. This proves that this technology did affect the outcome of he war and the strategy to use in in order to force Japan into surrender. “The bomb would kill many people, and this would put pressure on the Japanese government to surrender”. (Richard Rhodes, 2006) page 7 From the information that I have researched and analyses, technology and strategy did not affect the outcome of World War II.
The outcome of World War II was as a result of the axis powers being outnumbered hugely by the allied forces. If the German army had more soldiers to fight their battles with their advanced weaponry such as the Panzer Tank, and their cunning strategies such as the “Blitzkrieg”, the outcome of World War II would have been different. Doll Hitter’s final offensive would have been successful with more soldiers and supplies and would’ve defeated the Western allied forces, allowing them to move their forces to deal with the Eastern allied forces.
The Allied landings in Normandy are proof that the Allies won with the amount of soldiers they sent into battle and not by the technology they used. If the Axis soldiers who were defending the beachheads against the Allied attacks had air support or a few more soldiers with machine guns, those beachheads would have been defended and many Allied soldiers been killed. As a result of those beachheads not being taken, there would have been no support for other Allied forces and no pressure on the Axis powers, allowing them to deal and move soldiers/military equipment to other fronts.
When the USA dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did end the war, but if the USA had not dropped the bombs they still would have defeated the Japanese Army. The USA still had huge military power and also the other Allied forces, so they would have outnumbered the Japanese and eventually defeated them. I encountered limitations with finding out which World War II battles/offensives were very important to the outcome of the war, and why the battles outcome was the way it was, there were many sources which were controversial about the battles and whether or not they were important.