this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
271 points (96.9% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2753 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

(Reuters) - Ukrainian troops are suffering high losses because Western arms are arriving too slowly to equip the armed forces properly, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told CNN in an interview aired on Sunday.

Russia has been gaining ground in parts of eastern Ukraine including around Pokrovsk. Capture of the transport hub could enable Moscow to open new lines of attack.

Zelenskiy said the situation in the east was "very tough", adding that half of Ukraine's brigades there were not equipped.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Olap@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everyone talked about tanks as ww1 winners. But people don't quite realise the stupendous artillery advantage the allies had. 2 or 3 to 1 by the end of the war in places. And significantly more shells. There's a reason we are still digging then up today

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It wasn't artillery, it was shells.

We had access to bat guano from islands in the pacific for nitrogen, well, eventually.

The Germans had to develop whole new chemical processes to keep up, and they were expensive.

Until the US entered, Germany had an advantage in number of guns, and actually shells too at the very beginning (England was not ready for a non-colonial war).

Chatgpt, because I'm too lazy to cite real research:

Yes, Germany had more artillery guns and shells in the early stages of World War I, particularly before the United States entered the war in 1917. Germany had invested heavily in artillery prior to the war, and its military strategy, especially in the Western Front, relied on heavy artillery barrages. This gave Germany a significant edge in terms of both the quantity and quality of its artillery.

At the start of the war, Germany's emphasis on artillery allowed them to fire large amounts of shells in major battles, including during the Battle of Verdun and the Battle of the Somme. However, as the war dragged on and the Allies ramped up their production and coordination (with significant help from the United States after 1917), Germany's advantage in artillery was gradually eroded. By 1918, the combined forces of the Allies, with U.S. involvement, had caught up in terms of artillery and shell production, significantly diminishing Germany's earlier advantage.

The U.S. entry into the war tipped the balance in favor of the Allies in terms of both manpower and industrial capacity, contributing to the eventual defeat of Germany.