It was marked by a major advancement in weapons without a similar achievement in mobility. The machine gun was a major factor in this. There was not much that could penetrate defenses held by machine guns at the time. They did have tanks, however these were slow, still rather unsophisticated, and unreliable as a major means of bombardment/troop movement. This led to trench warfare being put in use, due to the much higher efficiency of defense as compared to offense given then current technologies. Such a stationary war is at odds with much of what we've seen throughout military history, with maneuvering being just as large a part of strategy as weapons used, and to some extent numbers of troops used. Flanking. encircling, etc. was of little use when you had to do it across mine littered fields with machine guns mowing you down. This was almost purely a war of attrition.
Because everynoe had to change tactics because of all the modern machienery. It was the first time trenches were used
Yes, in addition to the above: WW1 couldn't have happened in the way it did without 2 particular inventions, the Railway & Tinned Food. Notably it was also the first conflict in which Attrition was used against the enemy, that is wearing away the enemy without directly engaging in battle, in short, using field artillery to destroy the enemys' will & ability to defend. Also, of course, the machine gun came into its own on the battlefield.
The machine gun, the tank, the airplane, the submarine and poison gas all combined to get more people killed faster than ever before. A lot more countries participated in this war than the other ones, hence the name.
Most wars were faught only between a few countries, but both World War 1 and World War 2 involved hundreds of countries, hence the name Wold War. They also brought mass devestation and destruction with them.
World War One was different to any other war because it was the first war of that size and importance and it was also the first war that spanned across the world.
it was a world war
that theres different contrys in each war
Because everyone had to make major changes to adjust to all the technological advances during the war
what is the difference bewteen the world war 2 and the modern day war and how are the weapons different between the two wars
WW I was bigger than previous wars, because all the powerful nations of the world were involved on one side or the other, in two vast, opposed alliances (the Triple Entente vs. the Central Powers). No previous war had involved the whole world.
The wars are not comparable. All had different causes, and were fought under different conditions. However, the Confederates liked to compare themselves with the heroes of the American Revolution, fighting for self-government. And the fighting at Petersburg in 1864-5 did resemble the trench warfare of World War 1.
that theres different contrys in each war
Yes, there is a possibility of another world war; however, there is also a push for countries to unite. If there is another world war, it will probably be much different than the previous wars.
Because everyone had to make major changes to adjust to all the technological advances during the war
The French 75, the machine gun and the aircraft.
50 to 70 million lives were lost during World War 2. No other war, not even World War 1, had even half that many deaths. You would have to combine the deaths of many different wars to even get close to the World War 2 death totals.
what is the difference bewteen the world war 2 and the modern day war and how are the weapons different between the two wars
WW I was bigger than previous wars, because all the powerful nations of the world were involved on one side or the other, in two vast, opposed alliances (the Triple Entente vs. the Central Powers). No previous war had involved the whole world.
Well they are different wars and different people fought in them.
there was only a world war 1 and world war 2
The wars are not comparable. All had different causes, and were fought under different conditions. However, the Confederates liked to compare themselves with the heroes of the American Revolution, fighting for self-government. And the fighting at Petersburg in 1864-5 did resemble the trench warfare of World War 1.
No, they were two different wars fought in different time periods.
it is because of how the wars started