• SSTF@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why didn’t they just use F/A-18F Super Hornet supersonic twin-engine, carrier-capable, multirole fighter aircraft in 1914? Are they stupid?

      • SSTF@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Military strategy and tactics are forced to constantly play catch up to technology and context. Looking at history, it helps to take off the hindsight goggles and meme filter and look at why people did what they did, with the resources they had, with the goals they were given.

        There were many missteps and mistakes, some of them were simply bad, but WW1 is very prone to being reduced to memes that strip away any nuance and only magnify the failures.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          To be fair, the French military published a very brilliant and prescient paper on the nature of the coming war and the tactics it would require a handful of years before the War broke out… and the brass proceeded to completely ignore that paper in favor of ‘tried and true’ tactics.

          Pigheadedness and tunnel-vision may not be stupidity per se, but it’s close enough that few observers are going to care about the difference.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If there’s a single period of military history where contemporary and future experts agreed that the military leaders of the time were mostly blood thirsty and delusional morons who did not care how many people their inbred and willful idiocy got killed, it’s WW1, so that’s a pretty forgiving take for some of history’s most ineffective commanders.