The problem was the all-or-nothing application more than the technology itself. Three recurring errors drove it: planners expected opponents to remain static, committed everything to one solution, and assumed they would always outthink the enemy. The high-ground analogy shows how even a real advantage can fail when an opponent has a counter such as long-range artillery. A useful technology still needs a wider force design and realistic assumptions about enemy adaptation.
Chapter · 20:04-22:36
Three failures of wonder-weapon thinking
The doctrine failed when planners assumed one technology could dominate warfare, opponents would remain static, and French choices would always be smarter.