World War I (part 1)

Introduction

 An international conflict that in 1914–18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions. The war pitted the Central Powers—mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey—against the Allies—mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, Japan, and, from 1917, the United States. It ended with the defeat of the Central Powers. The war was virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused.
World War I was one of the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history. It led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties (in Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey), resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and, in its destabilization of European society, laid the groundwork for World War II.

The outbreak of war

With Serbia already much aggrandized by the two Balkan Wars (1912–13, 1913), Serbian nationalists turned their attention back to the idea of “liberating” the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary. Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, head of Serbia's military intelligence, was also, under the alias “Apis,” head of the secret society Union or Death, pledged to the pursuit of this pan-Serbian ambition. Believing that the Serbs' cause would be served by the death of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austrian emperor Francis Joseph, and learning that the Archduke was about to visit Bosnia on a tour of military inspection, Apis plotted his assassination. Nikola Pašić, the Serbian prime minister and an enemy of Apis, heard of the plot and warned the Austrian government of it, but his message was too cautiously worded to be understood.

Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, riding in an open carriage at Sarajevo …

At 11:15 AM, on June 28, 1914, in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, Francis Ferdinand and his morganatic wife, Sophie, duchess of Hohenberg, were shot dead by a Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip.The chief of the Austro-Hungarian general staff, Franz, Graf Conrad von Hötzendorf, and the foreign minister, Leopold, Graf von Berchtold, saw the crime as the occasion for measures to humiliate Serbia and so to enhance Austria-Hungary's prestige in the Balkans; and Conrad had already (October 1913) been assured by William II of Germany's support if Austria-Hungary should start a preventive war against Serbia. This assurance was confirmed in the week following the assassination, before William, on July 6, set off upon his annual cruise to the North Cape, off Norway.
The Austrians decided to present an unacceptable ultimatum to Serbia and then to declare war, relying on Germany to deter Russia from intervention. Though the terms of the ultimatum were finally approved on July 19, its delivery was postponed to the evening of July 23, since by that time the French president, Raymond Poincaré, and his premier, René Viviani, who had set off on a state visit to Russia on July 15, would be on their way home and therefore unable to concert an immediate reaction with their Russian allies. When the delivery was announced, on July 24, Russia declared that Austria-Hungary must not be allowed to crush Serbia.
Serbia replied to the ultimatum on July 25, accepting most of its demands but protesting against two of them, namely, that Serbian officials (unnamed) should be dismissed at Austria-Hungary's behest and that Austro-Hungarian officials should take part, on Serbian soil, in proceedings against organizations hostile to Austria-Hungary. Though Serbia offered to submit the issue to international arbitration, Austria-Hungary promptly severed diplomatic relations and ordered partial mobilization.
Home from his cruise on July 27, William learned on July 28 how Serbia had replied to the ultimatum. At once he instructed the German Foreign Office to tell Austria-Hungary that there was no longer any justification for war and that it should content itself with a temporary occupation of Belgrade. But, meanwhile, the German Foreign Office had been giving such encouragement to Berchtold that already on July 27 he had persuaded Francis Joseph to authorize war against Serbia. War was, in fact, declared on July 28, and Austro-Hungarian artillery began to bombard Belgrade the next day. Russia then ordered partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary; and on July 30, when Austria-Hungary was riposting conventionally with an order of mobilization on its Russian frontier, Russia ordered general mobilization. Germany, which since July 28 had still been hoping, in disregard of earlier warning hints from Great Britain, that Austria-Hungary's war against Serbia could be “localized” to the Balkans, was now disillusioned insofar as eastern Europe was concerned. On July 31 Germany sent a 24-hour ultimatum requiring Russia to halt its mobilization and an 18-hour ultimatum requiring France to promise neutrality in the event of war between Russia and Germany.
Both Russia and France predictably ignored these demands. On August 1, Germany ordered general mobilization and declared war against Russia, and France likewise ordered general mobilization. The next day, Germany sent troops into Luxembourg and demanded from Belgium free passage for German troops across its neutral territory. On August 3 Germany declared war against France.
In the night of August 3–4 German forces invaded Belgium. Thereupon, Great Britain, which had no concern with Serbia and no express obligation to fight either for Russia or for France but was expressly committed to defend Belgium, on August 4 declared war against Germany.
Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 5; Serbia against Germany on August 6; Montenegro against Austria-Hungary on August 7 and against Germany on August 12; France and Great Britain against Austria-Hungary on August 10 and on August 12, respectively; Japan against Germany on August 23; Austria-Hungary against Japan on August 25 and against Belgium on August 28.
Romania had renewed its secret anti-Russian alliance of 1883 with the Central Powers on Feb. 26, 1914, but now chose to remain neutral. Italy had confirmed the Triple Alliance on Dec. 7, 1912, but could now propound formal arguments for disregarding it: first, Italy was not obliged to support its allies in a war of aggression; second, the original treaty of 1882 had stated expressly that the alliance was not against England.
On Sept. 5, 1914, Russia, France, and Great Britain concluded the Treaty of London, each promising not to make a separate peace with the Central Powers. Thenceforth, they could be called the Allied, or Entente, Powers, or simply the Allies.
The outbreak of war in August 1914 was generally greeted with confidence and jubilation by the peoples of Europe, among whom it inspired a wave of patriotic feeling and celebration. Few people imagined how long or how disastrous a war between the great nations of Europe could be, and most believed that their country's side would be victorious within a matter of months. The war was welcomed either patriotically, as a defensive one imposed by national necessity, or idealistically, as one for upholding right against might, the sanctity of treaties, and international morality.

Technology of war in 1914

The planning and conduct of war in 1914 were crucially influenced by the invention of new weapons and the improvement of existing types since the Franco-German War of 1870–71. The chief developments of the intervening period had been the machine gun and the rapid-fire field artillery gun. The modern machine gun, which had been developed in the 1880s and '90s, was a reliable belt-fed gun capable of sustained rates of extremely rapid fire; it could fire 600 bullets per minute with a range of more than 1,000 yards (900 metres). In the realm of field artillery, the period leading up to the war saw the introduction of improved breech-loading mechanisms and brakes. Without a brake or recoil mechanism, a gun lurched out of position during firing and had to be re-aimed after each round. The new improvements were epitomized in the French 75-millimetre field gun; it remained motionless during firing, and it was not necessary to readjust the aim in order to bring sustained fire on a target. Machine guns and rapid-firing artillery, when used in combination with trenches and barbed-wire emplacements, gave a decided advantage to the defense, since these weapons' rapid and sustained firepower could decimate a frontal assault by either infantry or cavalry.

There was a considerable disparity in 1914 between the deadly effectiveness of modern armaments and the doctrinal teachings of some armies. The South African War and the Russo-Japanese War had revealed the futility of frontal infantry or cavalry attacks on prepared positions when unaccompanied by surprise, but few military leaders foresaw that the machine gun and the rapid-firing field gun would force armies into trenches in order to survive. Instead, war was looked upon by many leaders in 1914 as a contest of national wills, spirit, and courage. A prime example of this attitude was the French Army, which was dominated by the doctrine of the offensive. French military doctrine called for headlong bayonet charges of French infantrymen against the German rifles, machine guns, and artillery. German military thinking, under the influence of Alfred, Graf von Schlieffen, sought, unlike the French, to avoid frontal assaults but rather to achieve an early decision by deep flanking attacks; and at the same time to make use of reserve divisions alongside regular formations from the outset of war. The Germans paid greater attention to training their officers in defensive tactics using machine guns, barbed wire, and fortifications.

Read more »

War (part 1)

Introduction

In the popular sense, a conflict among political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude. In the usage of social science, certain qualifications are added. Sociologists usually apply the term to such conflicts only if they are initiated and conducted in accordance with socially recognized forms. They treat war as an institution recognized in custom or in law. Military writers usually confine the term to hostilities in which the contending groups are sufficiently equal in power to render the outcome uncertain for a time. Armed conflicts of powerful states with isolated and powerless peoples are usually called pacifications, military expeditions, or explorations; with small states, they are called interventions or reprisals; and with internal groups, rebellions or insurrections. Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or protracted, may achieve a magnitude that entitles them to the name “war.”

In all ages war has been an important topic of analysis. In the latter part of the 20th century, in the aftermath of two world wars and in the shadow of nuclear, biological, and chemical holocaust, more was written on the subject than ever before. Endeavours to understand the nature of war, to formulate some theory of its causes, conduct, and prevention, are of great importance, for theory shapes human expectations and determines human behaviour. The various schools of theorists are generally aware of the profound influence they can exercise upon life, and their writings usually include a strong normative element, for, when accepted by politicians, their ideas can assume the characteristics of self-fulfilling prophecies.
The analysis of war may be divided into several categories. Philosophical, political, economic, technological, legal, sociological, and psychological approaches are frequently distinguished. These distinctions indicate the varying focuses of interest and the different analytical categories employed by the theoretician, but most of the actual theories are mixed because war is an extremely complex social phenomenon that cannot be explained by any single factor or through any single approach.

Evolution of theories of war

Reflecting changes in the international system, theories of war have passed through several phases in the course of the past three centuries. After the ending of the wars of religion, about the middle of the 17th century, wars were fought for the interests of individual sovereigns and were limited both in their objectives and in their scope. The art of maneuver became decisive, and analysis of war was couched accordingly in terms of strategies. The situation changed fundamentally with the outbreak of the French Revolution, which increased the size of forces from small professional to large conscript armies and broadened the objectives of war to the ideals of the revolution, ideals that appealed to the masses who were subject to conscription. In the relative order of post-Napoleonic Europe, the mainstream of theory returned to the idea of war as a rational, limited instrument of national policy. This approach was best articulated by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his famous classic On War (1832–37).
World War I, which was “total” in character because it resulted in the mobilization of entire populations and economies for a prolonged period of time, did not fit into the Clausewitzian pattern of limited conflict, and it led to a renewal of other theories. These no longer regarded war as a rational instrument of state policy. The theorists held that war, in its modern, total form, if still conceived as a national state instrument, should be undertaken only if the most vital interests of the state, touching upon its very survival, are concerned. Otherwise, warfare serves broad ideologies and not the more narrowly defined interests of a sovereign or a nation. Like the religious wars of the 17th century, war becomes part of “grand designs,” such as the rising of the proletariat in communist eschatology or the Nazi doctrine of a master race.
Some theoreticians have gone even further, denying war any rational character whatsoever. To them war is a calamity and a social disaster, whether it is afflicted by one nation upon another or conceived of as afflicting humanity as a whole. The idea is not new—in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars it was articulated, for example, by Tolstoy in the concluding chapter of War and Peace (1865–69). In the second half of the 20th century it gained new currency in peace research, a contemporary form of theorizing that combines analysis of the origins of warfare with a strong normative element aiming at its prevention. Peace research concentrates on two areas: the analysis of the international system and the empirical study of the phenomenon of war.
World War II and the subsequent evolution of weapons of mass destruction made the task of understanding the nature of war even more urgent. On the one hand, war had become an intractable social phenomenon, the elimination of which seemed to be an essential precondition for the survival of mankind. On the other hand, the use of war as an instrument of policy was calculated in an unprecedented manner by the nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. War also remained a stark but rational instrumentality in certain more limited conflicts, such as those between Israel and the Arab nations. Thinking about war, consequently, became increasingly more differentiated because it had to answer questions related to very different types of conflict.
Clausewitz cogently defines war as a rational instrument of foreign policy: “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” Modern definitions of war, such as “armed conflict between political units,” generally disregard the narrow, legalistic definitions characteristic of the 19th century, which limited the concept to formally declared war between states. Such a definition includes civil wars but at the same time excludes such phenomena as insurrections, banditry, or piracy. Finally, war is generally understood to embrace only armed conflicts on a fairly large scale, usually excluding conflicts in which fewer than 50,000 combatants are involved.

Read more »

Army

A large organized force armed and trained for war, especially on land. The term may be applied to a large unit organized for independent action, or it may be applied to a nation's or ruler's complete military organization for land warfare.

Throughout history, the character and organization of armies have changed. Social and political aspects of nations at different periods resulted in revision in the makeup of armies. New weapons influenced the nature of warfare and the organization of armies. At various times armies have been built around infantry soldiers or mounted warriors or men in machines. They have been made up of professionals or amateurs, of mercenaries fighting for pay or for plunder, or of patriots fighting for a cause. Consideration of the development of armies must be made in the light of the times in which the particular army was forged and the campaigns that it fought.

Read more »

ALCM, SLCM And GLCM

By 1972, constraints placed on ballistic missiles by the SALT I treaty prompted U.S. nuclear strategists to think again about using cruise missiles. There was also concern over Soviet advances in antiship cruise missile technology, and in Vietnam remotely piloted vehicles had demonstrated considerable reliability in gathering intelligence information over previously inaccessible, highly defended areas. Improvements in electronics—in particular, microcircuits, solid-state memory, and computer processing—presented inexpensive, lightweight, and highly reliable methods of solving the persistent problems of guidance and control. Perhaps most important, terrain contour mapping, or Tercom, techniques, derived from the earlier Atran, offered excellent en route and terminal-area accuracy.
Tercom used a radar or photographic image from which a digitalized contour map was produced. At selected points in the flight known as Tercom checkpoints, the guidance system would match a radar image of the missile's current position with the programmed digital image, making corrections to the missile's flight path in order to place it on the correct course. Between Tercom checkpoints, the missile would be guided by an advanced inertial system; this would eliminate the need for constant radar emissions, which would make electronic detection extremely difficult. As the flight progressed, the size of the radar map would be reduced, improving accuracy. In practice, Tercom brought the CEP of modern cruise missiles down to less than 150 feet (see Figure 1).
Improvements in engine design also made cruise missiles more practical. In 1967 the Williams International Corporation produced a small turbofan engine (12 inches in diameter, 24 inches long) that weighed less than 70 pounds and produced more than 400 pounds of thrust. New fuel mixtures offered more than 30-percent increases in fuel energy, which translated directly into extended range.
By the end of the Vietnam War, both the U.S. Navy and Air Force had cruise missile projects under way. At 19 feet three inches, the navy's sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM; eventually designated the Tomahawk) was 30 inches shorter than the air force's air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), but system components were quite similar and often from the same manufacturer (both missiles used the Williams engine and the McDonnell Douglas Corporation's Tercom). The Boeing Company produced the ALCM, while the General Dynamics Corporation produced the SLCM as well as the ground-launched cruise missile, or GLCM. The SLCM and GLCM were essentially the same configuration, differing only in their basing mode. The GLCM was designed to be launched from wheeled transporter-erector-launchers, while the SLCM was expelled from submarine tubes to the ocean surface in steel canisters or launched directly from armoured box launchers aboard surface ships. Both the SLCM and GLCM were propelled from their launchers or canisters by a solid-rocket booster, which dropped off after the wings and tail fins flipped out and the jet engine ignited. The ALCM, being dropped from a bomb-bay dispenser or wing pylon of a flying B-52 or B-1 bomber, did not require rocket boosting.
As finally deployed, the U.S. cruise missiles were intermediate-range weapons that flew at an altitude of 100 feet to a range of 1,500 miles. The SLCM was produced in three versions: a tactical-range (275-mile) antiship missile, with a combination of inertial guidance and active radar homing and with a high-explosive warhead; and two intermediate-range land-attack versions, with combined inertial and Tercom guidance and with either a high-explosive or a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. The ALCM carried the same nuclear warhead as the SLCM, while the GLCM carried a low-yield warhead of 10 to 50 kilotons.
The ALCM entered service in 1982 and the SLCM in 1984. The GLCM was first deployed to Europe in 1983, but all GLCMs were dismantled after the signing of the INF Treaty.
Although their small size and low flight paths made the ALCM and SLCM difficult to detect by radar (the ALCM presented a radar cross section only one one-thousandth that of the B-52 bomber), their subsonic speed of about 500 miles per hour made them vulnerable to air defenses once they were detected. For this reason, the U.S. Air Force began production of an advanced cruise missile, which would incorporate stealth technologies such as radar-absorbent materials and smooth, nonreflective surface shapes. The advanced cruise missile would have a range of over 1,800 miles.

Read more »

Cruise Missiles

The single most important difference between ballistic missiles and cruise missiles is that the latter operate within the atmosphere. This presents both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of atmospheric flight is that traditional methods of flight control (e.g., airfoil wings for aerodynamic lift, rudder and elevator flaps for directional and vertical control) are readily available from the technologies of manned aircraft. Also, while strategic early-warning systems can immediately detect the launch of ballistic missiles, low-flying cruise missiles presenting small radar and infrared cross sections offer a means of slipping past these air-defense screens.
The principal disadvantage of atmospheric flight centres around the fuel requirements of a missile that must be powered continuously for strategic distances. Some tactical-range antiship cruise missiles such as the U.S. Harpoon have been powered by turbojet engines, and even some non-cruise missiles such as the Soviet SA-6 Gainful surface-to-air missile employed ramjets to reach supersonic speed, but at ranges of 1,000 miles or more these engines would require enormous amounts of fuel. This in turn would necessitate a larger missile, which would approach a manned jet aircraft in size and would thereby lose the unique ability to evade enemy defenses. This problem of maintaining balance between range, size, and fuel consumption was not solved until reliable, fuel-efficient turbofan engines were made small enough to propel a missile of radar-evading size.
As with ballistic missiles, guidance has been a long-standing problem in cruise missile development. Tactical cruise missiles generally use radio or inertial guidance to reach the general vicinity of their targets and then home onto the targets with various radar or infrared mechanisms. Radio guidance, however, is subject to line-of-sight range limitations, and inaccuracies tend to arise in inertial systems over the long flight times required of strategic cruise missiles. Radar and infrared homing devices, moreover, can be jammed or spoofed. Adequate long-range guidance for cruise missiles was not available until inertial systems were designed that could be updated periodically by self-contained electronic map-matching devices.
Beginning in the 1950s, the Soviet Union pioneered the development of tactical air- and sea-launched cruise missiles, and in 1984 a strategic cruise missile given the NATO designation AS-15 Kent became operational aboard Tu-95 bombers. But Soviet programs were so cloaked in secrecy that the following account of the development of cruise missiles focuses by necessity on U.S. programs.

The V-1

The first practical cruise missile was the German V-1 of World War II, which was powered by a pulse jet that used a cycling flutter valve to regulate the air and fuel mixture. Because the pulse jet required airflow for ignition, it could not operate below 150 miles per hour. Therefore, a ground catapult boosted the V-1 to 200 miles per hour, at which time the pulse-jet engine was ignited. Once ignited, it could attain speeds of 400 miles per hour and ranges exceeding 150 miles. Course control was accomplished by a combined air-driven gyroscope and magnetic compass, and altitude was controlled by a simple barometric altimeter; as a consequence, the V-1 was subject to heading, or azimuth, errors resulting from gyro drift, and it had to be operated at fairly high altitudes (usually above 2,000 feet) to compensate for altitude errors caused by differences in atmospheric pressure along the route of flight.
The missile was armed in flight by a small propeller that, after a specified number of turns, activated the warhead at a safe distance from the launch. As the V-1 approached its target, the control vanes were inactivated and a rear-mounted spoiler, or drag device, deployed, pitching the missile nose-down toward the target. This usually interrupted the fuel supply, causing the engine to quit, and the weapon detonated upon impact.
Because of the rather crude method of calculating the impact point by the number of revolutions of a small propeller, the Germans could not use the V-1 as a precision weapon, nor could they determine the actual impact point in order to make course corrections for subsequent flights. In fact, the British publicized inaccurate information on impact points, causing the Germans to adjust their preflight calculations erroneously. As a result, V-1s often fell well short of their intended targets.
Following the war there was considerable interest in cruise missiles. Between 1945 and 1948, the United States began approximately 50 independent cruise missile projects, but lack of funding gradually reduced that number to three by 1948. These three—Snark, Navaho, and Matador—provided the necessary technical groundwork for the first truly successful strategic cruise missiles, which entered service in the 1980s.

Snark

The Snark was an air force program begun in 1945 to produce a subsonic (600-mile-per-hour) cruise missile capable of delivering a 2,000-pound atomic or conventional warhead to a range of 5,000 miles, with a CEP of less than 1.75 miles. Initially, the Snark used a turbojet engine and an inertial navigation system, with a complementary stellar navigation monitor to provide intercontinental range. By 1950, due to the yield requirements of atomic warheads, the design payload had changed to 5,000 pounds, accuracy requirements shrank the CEP to 1,500 feet, and range increased to more than 6,200 miles. These design changes forced the military to cancel the first Snark program in favour of a “Super Snark,” or Snark II.
The Snark II incorporated a new jet engine that was later used in the B-52 bomber and KC-135A aerial tanker operated by the Strategic Air Command. Although this engine design was to prove quite reliable in manned aircraft, other problems—in particular, those associated with flight dynamics—continued to plague the missile. The Snark lacked a horizontal tail surface, it used elevons instead of ailerons and elevators for attitude and directional control, and it had an extremely small vertical tail surface. These inadequate control surfaces, and the relatively slow (or sometimes nonexistent) ignition of the jet engine, contributed significantly to the missile's difficulties in flight tests—to a point where the coastal waters off the test site at Cape Canaveral, Fla., were often referred to as “Snark-infested waters.” Flight control was not the least of the Snark's problems: unpredictable fuel consumption also resulted in embarrassing moments. One 1956 flight test appeared amazingly successful at the outset, but the engine failed to shut off and the missile was last seen “heading toward the Amazon.” (The vehicle was found in 1982 by a Brazilian farmer.)
Considering the less than dramatic successes in the test program, the Snark, as well as other cruise missile programs, probably would have been destined for cancellation had it not been for two developments. First, antiaircraft defenses had improved to a point where bombers could no longer reach their targets with the usual high-altitude flight paths. Second, thermonuclear weapons were beginning to arrive in military inventories, and these lighter, higher-yield devices allowed designers to relax CEP constraints. As a result, an improved Snark was deployed in the late 1950s at two bases in Maine and Florida.
The new missile, however, continued to exhibit the unreliabilities and inaccuracies typical of earlier models. On a series of flight tests, the Snark's CEP was estimated to average 20 miles, with the most accurate flight striking 4.2 miles left and 1,600 feet short. This “successful” flight was the only one to reach the target area at all and was one of only two to go beyond 4,400 miles. Accumulated test data showed that the Snark had a 33-percent chance of successful launch and a 10-percent chance of achieving the required distance. As a consequence, the two Snark units were deactivated in 1961.

Read more »