With reference to either the First World War (1914-1918) or the Second World War (1939-1945)

to what extent was the Allies success the result of their superior tactics and strategies?

As the War to End All Wars approached, the nature of warfare had significantly changed

compared to the wars of the 19th century. As warfare changed, so did tactics and strategies. The

Allies and Central Powers both had to adapt to these changes. As will be shown in this essay,

the side that was winning, was usually also adapting new tactics and strategies quicker.

However, this is not to say that the ultimate Allies success was because of superior tactics and

strategies. On the contrary, they were only to a fairly limited extent the reason for Allies s

success because the Allies generals did not display significantly better tactics than Central

Powers generals; the Allies failed to deploy significantly better technology and use it to their

advantage; and because the Allies were not able to show superior strategies on how to fight the

war as a whole.

During the First World War, the Allies generals werent able to devise significantly superior

tactics than Central Powers generals, which why they contributed to Allies success only to a

limited extent. For example, Sir Douglas Haig was known as the butcher because he threw

massive armies against German lines, often without success. He did so in the Battle of the

Somme, where Britain suffered 60,000 casualties on the first day. The elderly Haig was blamed

to use antiquated strategies and not fully considering the ease with which machine guns could

slaughter his troops. Though, it must be noted that historian John Terraine has defended Haig,

saying that Haig did not have another option due to the rigid nature of trench warfare.

However, German generals were able to quite successfully deploy storm troops and break
through defensive lines; this displays superior tactics on the Central Powers side. Though this

example is extreme, it shows how the Allies did not win the First World War because they had

better military staff deploying superior tactics and strategies. Though to a lesser extent, Winston

Churchill, John J. Pershing and Aleksandr Samsonov, were three other generals who famously

failed to successfully deploy superior tactics to the Central Powers. This is not to say that all

German generals were deploying superior tactics and strategies, but Allies generals were not

the reason for ultimate Allied success.

Though to a limited extent, the Allies occasionally used technology much better than the

Central Powers and were therefore able to transform technological superiority into tactical and

strategic superiority. Especially during the last counter-offensive from March, 1918 onwards,

the Allies displayed superior technology. The use of tanks, for example, generated a significant

advantage and helped the Allies. This is because the allies more successfully used tanks in

conjunction with infantry, artillery and aircrafts. The German A7V was larger, slower and

tended to break down more frequently. The Allies, however, used small Renault FTs to their

advantage. For example, the advantage showed during the Battle of Amiens in August, 1918,

when tanks helped the Allies break through German defensive lines. For much of the war, the

Allies were lagging behind Central Powers in terms of technology that was a key part of

strategy. One key examples is the Germans use of U-boats, that almost starved Britain to

surrender by 1917. However, by use of hydrophones and mines, the Allies did eventually catch

up with German technology and rendered the U-boat fleet almost useless. This was also helped

by successful Allied strategy at the Zeebrugge Raid of April, 1918, that blocked the U-boat
fleets most important port. Though the allies were able to neutralize the U-boat threat, which

definitely helped them win the war, they were not able to gain a superiority in tactics and

strategy themselves. Neither side developed a wonder weapon that decisively won the war,

but with the use of tanks and similar technologies, the Allies were able to show superior tactics

in battles.

On a national and international level, the Allies were able to deploy a significantly superior

strategy only to a limited extent towards the end of the war. As the war began, the French

strategy was to directly invade Germany through Alsace Lorraine. Meanwhile, the French were

not seen considering Germanys Schlieffen Plan thoroughly. Without delving too deeply into

counterfactual reasoning, it is possible that were it not for Belgian resistance and British

interference through, for example, the British Expeditionary Forces at Liege, the Schlieffen Plan

might well have been successful. Though the Central Powers failed, the Allies were in the

beginning not deploying any more coordinated overall strategy to fight the war. This can also

be seen with the failures of ANZAC forces in Gallipoli and the death of approximately 600,000

Italian forces in a disastrous Battle of Caporetto. Only in 1918, did other Allied forces help Italy

drive out Austrian forces and did British forces with the help of ANZAC and Indian forces

succeed at the Battle of Megiddo. Most importantly, however, was it with the entrance of the

United States that the campaign at the Western Front was successful. Though, even at the

Western Front, success is not solely due to superior strategy. Nonetheless, towards the end of

the war, the Allies can be seen deploying superior strategy, even though it was not the decisive

factor in winning the war.

Altogether, the Allies success was only to a limited extent because of superior tactics and

strategy. Allied generals failed to deploy significantly superior tactics in key battles such as the

Battle of Tannenberg or the Battle of the Somme. Allied forces were able to utilize significantly

better technology that put them in an advantage in regards to tactics and strategy, but it was not

decisive in the outcome of the war. Lastly, Allied strategy was only superior towards the end of

the war, when they cooperating on multiple fronts including the Western Front, the Middle

East, and Italy. Other factors, such as numerical advantage or higher national morale, must

have secured Allied success, while superior tactics and strategies only helped do so.