Tough campaign: Americans sit in foxholes during the initial Normandy landing operations on June 6, 1944. In the background amphibious tanks and other equipment crowd the beach. AP Photo/Weston Hayes Source: Supplied
THERE have been huge advances in technology since D-Day was fought in 1944 — but if the campaign was recreated today using modern weapons, would the battle be very different?
Probably not, says one military historian.
"People have been misled by all the military toys to think that technology makes a big difference, but it is not nearly as influential as people think, " University of NSW Professor Jeffrey Grey said.
Despite all our efforts, it is likely there would still be mass casualties.
"Amphibious operations against defended locations are very difficult," Prof Grey said.
Soldiers would still be forced to attack from air and sea and would face an enemy entrenched on cliffs high above them.
Back in 1944, about 156,000 soldiers landed in Normandy and this tough campaign saw about 14,000 people killed on the side of the US and its allies, while German deaths were estimated to be between 4000 and 9000 men.
Modern technology would provide some advantages, such as superior air power and more "devastating" lethal weapons like fuel air explosives, involving the release and ignition of highly flammable liquid. But Prof Grey said superior weaponry was not the game changer everyone assumed it to be.
Lives lost: American soldiers wade ashore during the Allied landing operations at the Normandy on June 6, 1944. AP Photo Source: Supplied
"For every new technology, there is usually a counter, and usually in military affairs if you gain an advantage, often it's not new technology, but a new way of using existing technology," Prof Grey said.
"In a short time your enemy will look at ways of countering and usually they will find them and in the great wars ... no expense is spared.
"You are essentially squaring a circle and starting again."
He said there were some exceptions, such as the development of the nuclear bomb, but generally wars were fought on a "give and take process" so a successful D-day campaign fought now would still involve a "hard fight with lots of casualties".
What has changed, though, in the 70 years since the campaign was fought was the attitude of people to war... and whether it was an effective way to resolve conflict.
Never-ending cycle of military technology: An Avenger anti-aircraft missile launcher sits atop a Humvee. AP: PicEvan/Vucci Source: AP
"Omaha Beach was a pretty bloody place but there was this general understanding about this, people were willing to pay the price for something they felt needed to be done.
"Whether western society today is equally willing, is an open question."
Prof Grey said there was now an aversion to using military force, even though in certain circumstances it could be a justified or realistic option.
"Europe nearly destroyed itself during the two world wars and that's why lots of parts of Europe have a societal attitude of demilitarisation," Prof Grey said.
Apart from Russia, and some other eastern European countries, there was now a more general understanding of the limitations of force and a lack of willingness to use it.
This is in contrast to opinions last century when most countries looked on war as an effective tool.
"The real issue is casualties and whether western society is prepared to bear the casualties caused by operations like D-day."
Cost of war: American assault troops of the 16th Infantry Regiment, injured while storming Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944. AP Photo Source: Supplied
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Bloodshed still the price of war
Dengan url
http://kelapapantai.blogspot.com/2014/06/bloodshed-still-price-of-war.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Bloodshed still the price of war
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Bloodshed still the price of war
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar