How did did the use of aircraft affect combat in world war i

2 answers:

8 0

The use of aircraft had been useful in World War I. It may not have been used as weapon however; the aircrafts were used to gather information. There were also used as to look out for enemy camps. They used message streamers in order to convey messages.

Ugo [173]3 years ago

6 0

WW I was the first war that involved the large-scale use of aircraft. At the outset of the war, aircraft were used unarmed for reconnaissance which allowed nations to explore the enemy's area and gain information about their movements and position and the natural features of the area. Eventually, military aircraft improved and airplanes began to drop bombs on strategic enemy locations (which caused major devastation to the enemy) and to carry weapons to do air-to-air combat at close range (also named dogfight), and which provided a new area to fight never seen before: the sky.

You might be interested in

Which of the following did NOT occur after federal troops moved out of the South and stopped enforcing African American rights a

Paul [167]

Answer: A Jim Crow Laws were put in place.

3 0

4 years ago

How does the President limit the power of the Judicial Branch?

enyata [817]

Answer: Appointing judges to the court.

Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

The farther West people in

vlabodo [156]

I think that it’s A. The more gold they discovered

6 0

3 years ago

sergeinik [125]

False. Most likely if you have a better education you will make more money in life.

8 0

4 years ago

Watch this video of US oil company owner T. Boone Pickens discussing OPEC. Why does Pickens want the United States to be more in

Mama L [17]

It is certainly not for altruistic purposes. Although he does have a point about the fact that energetic independence would boost American security by avoiding trade with brutal, dictatorial regimes as Islamic Saudi Arabia, Iran or other totalitarian regimes which provides them with funds; Pickens is mainly interested in furthering his own interests with regards to his own economic stakes in the fracking industry of shale gas and oil.

He also wants demand of oil and other fossile fuels to be reduced so thattheir prices go up, increasing his profit margins exponentially. He definitely does not care about the deleterious effects of fracking on the environment.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers