>>519081039
This isn‘t true for the first 200 years of modern artillery warfare (1700-1900). Mechanization didn’t exist back then, so that doesn‘t help the stereotype. And as Remyfren artfully explained in a post from a while ago; before there was artillery, strength decided the battle, after artillery, it was: RUUUN!!!
>WW1
Wow, all of WW1? Genius. You obviously only mean the Western front. The Eastern front was nothing like that. Balkan theater neither. The Germans and KuK were able to go toe to toe with Russia due to artillery advantage. Serbia beat back the Austrians due to artillery (home) advantage. 80% of casualties in modern war are either artillery or mines (now also drones). So it wasn‘t artillery that made the West a stalemate but its peculiar conditions like the fact the German Army had to constantly shift divisions East, while the Anglo-French did retarded relief offensives to get Russia to do the same. Also, there wasn’t the technology to exploit a breakthrough when it happened due to lack of transport (or motorisation). Not arty’s fault. And why blame arty for the stalemate but not credit the German +300mm siege howitzers (Dicke Bertha) that buckbroke Belgium in 1914? Or the Škoda 420mm? And why not mention the fact Germany and France had a small border that was heavily fortified (like the old Minsk-II Donbass contact line). You also ignore France had 2/3 Germany‘s population. Iraq had the same manpower disadvantage to Iran, US/Worst Korea to China/Best Korea, the IJA to the NRA, the CSA to the USA, and every other time, hence the trench warfare. When modern war was won quickly it was not due to infantry survival but artillery plus transport. France beat Austria in 1859 due to train network and mountain arty. Germany beat France in 1870 despite worse rifles due to railways and Krupp cannons. Bewegungskrieg in WW2 also relied on artillery. In conclusion, monofactorial analysis is thoroughly retarded. So that‘s yer bollocks debunked.
