I think you mean composite bow.(Since the compound bow was invented in the 1960’s)
But the Germans used the tanks better. The tanks were still a game-changer since blitzkrieg couldn’t have been developed without tanks.
Was it a game changer though? I was under the impression (and I could be completely wrong. Fight my ignorance) that it didn’t really do much. It wasn’t until the Maxim that things really changed.
You’re right. My mistake.
The rifled musket was a game changer, and it was only a very subtle improvement over the smooth bore musket that had been in use for 200 years. All they did was rifle the barrels and change the shape of the bullet. The result was the longer range of a rifle combined with the rapid reload and fire rate of a smooth bore musket. Tactics that worked for 200 years suddenly didn’t work so well, and many of the generals during the Civil War were very slow to realize this and compensate for it, often with disastrous results.
I’m kinda with you on that one.
There were a lot of rapid fire guns developed around that time. Most folks have heard of the Gatling gun but there were several others, like the Agar Gun. At the time, though, they were considered to be a huge waste of ammunition and of little use on the battlefield. The few rapid fire guns that did exist during the Civil War were used to guard bridges, valleys, and other choke points. That way they would be firing at a large bunch of targets and the huge amount of ammunition fired wouldn’t go to as much waste (or so the thinking went at the time). Because of the way they were used, they weren’t able to really show their potential on the battlefield.
It wasn’t until later that improvements in brass production (which allowed reliable ammunition to be produced cheaply) combined with significant changes in tactics turned machine guns into a game changer.
It was really the radio that allowed the Germans to take France in a short time.
Declan
I’ve heard the Battle of Agincourt described as (at least a good candidate for) the official end of the Middle Ages. When a bunch of commoners can make short work of knights, the feudal system breaks down. They don’t need the nobility to fight for them anymore because they’re the ones doing the real fighting.
Not quite that simple. Rifles had been around for a long time prior to their first mass deployment in the Crimean War (and not the US Civil War as so many on that side of the pond maintain), but were only used by hunters and skirmishers as the rifling would soon get fouled, bereaving the bullet of spin and leaving the whole affair a wobbling mess.
The great innovation was not rifling but the Minié ball. It had a hollow base, causing the bullet to expand and catch the grooves better. This had the secondary function of cleaning the rifling at each shot, allowing for repeated use. The Russians discovered at the battle of Alma that their much beloved tactic of engaging with bayonets no longer was viable.
It’s up for debate whether Blitzkrieg existed as a doctrine as we think of it. The word was certainly never used by the nazis themselves, and was used at the time mainly to describe how fast the panzers could move. For example when they invaded France, the French tanks did not have radios and had to communicate by landline telephones, of course the panzers would seem lightning fast compared to that.
I think “Blitzkrieg” is one of those things that didn’t actually exist the way we think of them like “Shock and Awe” in the Gulf War would lead to Saddam’s instant surrender.
I think you meant recurve bow. Compound bows are the ones with all the wheels and cables, and I don’t think they’ve ever been used as the main weapon in a war.
Recurve bows are the ones that were good for horseback, and were used to great effect by the mongols and the turks.
And I’m surprised no one yet mentioned;
Warfare is probably forever changed by the IED when a piece of copper, a disposeable cell or tripwire, and some C4 for a few dollars can take out a tank worth millions of dollars.
Heavy cavalry used as part of the main force in ancient Greece. The Persians used heavy cavalry too independently, as a main fighting force, and after being driven off it gave the Greeks confidence that cavalry was inferior. Then Macedon comes along using heavy cavalry as an augmentation of the phalanx, and completely shattered Hellenic power. This advantage carried into Persia, as well, where Alexander’s cavalry outclassed Persia’s at the Granicus and Issus.
The professional military class of Rome, whose training surpassed the citizen soldiers of contemporary powers.
The viking shield wall, which could even repel knights, under the right circumstances.
Pike phalanxes that helped keep Switzerland independent in the middle ages.
Mongol psychological and maneuver warfare. Beyond feints and deception used on the battlefield, they brought extra horses so they could travel much faster than enemy armies, and outmaneuver them, letting them pick when and where they want to fight.
Cannon as many people have mentioned - in naval warfare, before the cannon, naval engagements were still decided by boarding operations, mostly, which required large contingents of marines.
Pike and shot as used by Gustavus Adolphus; he ended up forming the premier empire in northern Europe during that time.
Minié ball allowed much faster reloading of muskets.
Chassepot rifle, one of the first to use the breechloading design to bypass having to fuss with the ramrod.
Dreyse needle gun, which used the first self-contained cartridges.
The metallic cartridge, which allows gunpowder weapons to be used just fine in wet weather without any special preparation or extra equipment.
Assembly line production of war equipment, which allows far greater numbers to be produced in shorter time.
Replaceable parts, which standardized equipment so weapons wouldn’t be out of commission while engineers manufactured replacements. You can take some with you, and repair them in the field.
They were just too expensive to manufacture, and too easy to break down. Too many moving parts, although it does have advantages over other designs. The maxim was much simpler, and allowed machine guns to be used offensively.
Meh. Not new, and not a game changer. An IED is just a homemade AT mine, which have been around as long as there have been tanks, just as landmines have been around ever since somebody figured out how to put gunpowder in a pot and connect a tripwire with a snaphance to make a fougasse.
No war has ever been won because one side has had IEDs while the other hasn’t. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are merely making use of the fact that they’re fighting on home ground.
Trees:
Yew - not just for Britain
Live oak - according to National Geographic, the live oak won America (or contributed greatly to) its independence.
Cinchona - tropical fighting
This one seems obvious, but has no one mentioned the sword? Imagine coming up against that for the first time.
Which was around 1277 AD, if not earlier:
[Wikipedia]
Not even God could beat iron chariots.
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
—Judges 1:19The Viking Longship. It allowed the Scandinavian peoples to dominate the seas throughout the early middle ages, and gave significant technological advantage to Viking raiders. The longship was quick to build, it moved quickly, it could sail over open seas as well as in very shallow and narrow rivers and streams. It could sail against winds and currents. It could make beach landings and be carried over land by its crew.
Its small size and economic shape made it easy to build, carry, maintain, and navigate; yet it was large enough to carry enough warriors and gear to create a fearsome raiding party. Even some of the smaller details were an important factor in its superiority: for instance, instead of benches, the crew sat on chests that opened for storage of gear and booty, allowing for economy of size in the ship’s design.
Steel weapons, with regard to the Zulu’s conquest of a large portion Africa.