Tech in WW1

Hello,

Me and Hawk recently had a freindly-ish argument about the Tech in WW1. I've posted the outline on one of my debating forums, so if you'd like to take a look and put your piece, that would be great.

http://diplomunion.com/showthread.php?10262-WW1-How-much-did-technology-contribute-and-evolve.&p=318386#post318386

Is he serious O_o

Well, being the World war 1 buff I try to be, tech was a very important part of world war 1, as all modern wars were. Tanks were made to break through trench barriers and move troops to enemy positions- without being destroyed. They added artillery later on. People first thought of making "Landships", name says it all. But they were impractical for the time, they wouldve been too large and too prone to attack. Another good example of a failed expieriment is the Tsar tank, a personal favorite of mine. The Tsar tank had 2 large wheels in the front, and a small one in the back. In my eyes, if they had increased the things speed by different methods and armoring the wheels it couldv'e been a success on the battlefield- imageine one of those big late-1800's bicycles going 20mph directly at you, only its 25 meters tall, amored, and has a huge cannon .

Aeroplanes as you said, were used for recon and occasionally bombing raids. Red baron ring a bell? Well anyways they were very new tech at the time, so nations didn't have as big of an interest in them as let's say, Airships (or for the krauts, Zeppelins ).

Honestly tech was a VERY important aspect of the great war- hell if the germans deployed the A7 earlier they couldve won (if they also made enough to detroy the american war machine )

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

Is he serious O_o

Well, being the World war 1 buff I try to be, tech was a very important part of world war 1, as all modern wars were. Tanks were made to break through trench barriers and move troops to enemy positions- without being destroyed. They added artillery later on. People first thought of making "Landships", name says it all. But they were impractical for the time, they wouldve been too large and too prone to attack. Another good example of a failed expieriment is the Tsar tank, a personal favorite of mine. The Tsar tank had 2 large wheels in the front, and a small one in the back. In my eyes, if they had increased the things speed by different methods and armoring the wheels it couldv'e been a success on the battlefield- imageine one of those big late-1800's bicycles going 20mph directly at you, only its 25 meters tall, amored, and has a huge cannon .

Aeroplanes as you said, were used for recon and occasionally bombing raids. Red baron ring a bell? Well anyways they were very new tech at the time, so nations didn't have as big of an interest in them as let's say, Airships (or for the krauts, Zeppelins ).

Honestly tech was a VERY important aspect of the great war- hell if the germans deployed the A7 earlier they couldve won (if they also made enough to detroy the american war machine )

WW1 planes did not bomb, they fired machine guns and were used primarily for recon. The Red Baron did not use bombs, using him as an example was very poor choice on your part.
Now I will list all the spelling errors in your post, if anyone finds any I missed feel free to add it in.

• But is not used to start a sentence.
  
• wouldve without '
  
• expieriment is spelled experiment
  
• couldv'e is spelled could've (prob a typo)
  
• imageine is spelled imagine
  
• amored is spelled armored
  
• germans not capitalized
  
• couldve without '
  
• detroy is spelled destroy
  
• American not capitalized
  

We're not discussing his grammar here Fruit, we're discussing Tech in WW1.

Napsáno Snighpor, 11.08.2011 at 03:03

We're not discussing his grammar here Fruit, we're discussing Tech in WW1.

my post included tech in WW1

Barely, but ok.

Have you looked on the link provided? Some 3,000 people were killed in WW1 due to bombing, and bombing Tech increased through those years dramatically. Gas, Subs, Airplanes and Machine Guns played a huge part in WW1, and most were developed within this time period (Or perfected).

Tech > Tactics.

Napsáno Fruit, 11.08.2011 at 02:55

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

Is he serious O_o

Well, being the World war 1 buff I try to be, tech was a very important part of world war 1, as all modern wars were. Tanks were made to break through trench barriers and move troops to enemy positions- without being destroyed. They added artillery later on. People first thought of making "Landships", name says it all. But they were impractical for the time, they wouldve been too large and too prone to attack. Another good example of a failed expieriment is the Tsar tank, a personal favorite of mine. The Tsar tank had 2 large wheels in the front, and a small one in the back. In my eyes, if they had increased the things speed by different methods and armoring the wheels it couldv'e been a success on the battlefield- imageine one of those big late-1800's bicycles going 20mph directly at you, only its 25 meters tall, amored, and has a huge cannon .

Aeroplanes as you said, were used for recon and occasionally bombing raids. Red baron ring a bell? Well anyways they were very new tech at the time, so nations didn't have as big of an interest in them as let's say, Airships (or for the krauts, Zeppelins ).

Honestly tech was a VERY important aspect of the great war- hell if the germans deployed the A7 earlier they couldve won (if they also made enough to detroy the american war machine )

WW1 planes did not bomb, they fired machine guns and were used primarily for recon. The Red Baron did not use bombs, using him as an example was very poor choice on your part.
Now I will list all the spelling errors in your post, if anyone finds any I missed feel free to add it in.

• But is not used to start a sentence.
  
• wouldve without '
  
• expieriment is spelled experiment
  
• couldv'e is spelled could've (prob a typo)
  
• imageine is spelled imagine
  
• amored is spelled armored
  
• germans not capitalized
  
• couldve without '
  
• detroy is spelled destroy
  
• American not capitalized
  

Excuse me for being Human fruit.

3000 out of 4 million? Doesn't seem like bombing was a very big part of WWI

Napsáno BASED Ironail, 11.08.2011 at 04:04

3000 out of 4 million? Doesn't seem like bombing was a very big part of WWI

I'm pretty sure the value of people killed in action is greater than that...

And besides, it's silly to say the deaths of 5 million or so from disease were not often directly caused by actions taken in the war, like trenches being flooded after bombings.

Napsáno Snighpor, 11.08.2011 at 03:03

We're not discussing his grammar here Fruit, we're discussing Tech in WW1.

This is correct. Please knock off the grammar trolling.

Napsáno Guest14502, 11.08.2011 at 08:02

Napsáno Snighpor, 11.08.2011 at 03:03

We're not discussing his grammar here Fruit, we're discussing Tech in WW1.

This is correct. Please knock off the grammar trolling.

a mere addition to the post, plus if you don't make people aware of their grammar they will continue to do so. It really just helps the community as a whole!

I would also like to note that your post was quite off topic from the thread and you should feel bad for doing such a terrible crime in the Off-Topic section no doubt!


anyways, the planes they had could not support conventional bombs(let's be honest here - they were terrible and could hardly handle being shot at, attaching an explosive under it would be a terrible idea.) surely it was just grenades or some other explosive they were throwing out of them.

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

. . .
Well, being the World war 1 buff I try to be, tech was a very important part of world war 1, as all modern wars were. Tanks were made to break through trench barriers and move troops to enemy positions- without being destroyed. They added artillery later on. People first thought of making "Landships", name says it all. But they were impractical for the time, they wouldve been too large and too prone to attack. Another good example of a failed expieriment is the Tsar tank, a personal favorite of mine. The Tsar tank had 2 large wheels in the front, and a small one in the back. In my eyes, if they had increased the things speed by different methods and armoring the wheels it couldv'e been a success on the battlefield- imageine one of those big late-1800's bicycles going 20mph directly at you, only its 25 meters tall, amored, and has a huge cannon .

Technology was and is important in every war troughout the history of mankind. However, the technology, especially tanks, had less impact on the war as you might think. As the creator of the "WW1 Scenario" you sure know that tanks were very vulnerable and unreliable and could only move very slow in the battlefield. In the first deployment of tanks by the British forces 17 of 49 tanks were lost before reaching the battle. A lot of innovations have been archieved, but only a few of them were effective in the war. Most of it was in very early stages and prototypes sent to the battlefield. In fact, tanks and airplanes weren't ready for battle untill the 1930's, were they and the art to use them has been "perfected".
Also the Tsar tank had a max. speed of 10-11 mph on the streets, it was unable to move through terrain, was very vulnerable and due it's giant front wheels it was hard to manoeuvre. A nice fav you picked there.

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

Honestly tech was a VERY important aspect of the great war- hell if the germans deployed the A7 earlier they couldve won (if they also made enough to detroy the american war machine )

War is not as simple as it is in Afterwind my friend. The A7 wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, nor would have any other technology in research of that time. By 1916 France was close to collapse and with the revolution in Russia there was a real chance for the "central powers" to win the war. To avoid this (and the loss of a lot of dollars invested into the warchest of Paris and London), the USA had to intervene. After the Intervention of the USA there was no real chance to win this war anymore. Not even an A7 would have changed this. While still holding the western front Germany agreed to the 14-Points-Plan of Wilson (which sadly lead to the betrayal of Versailles), to end this tiring and bloodthirsty war. Even if the Germans were able to fight the Americans off, they likely would have agreed to a peace treaty as they got dragged into a war they didn't want.

Napsáno Fruit, 11.08.2011 at 09:45

anyways, the planes they had could not support conventional bombs(let's be honest here - they were terrible and could hardly handle being shot at, attaching an explosive under it would be a terrible idea.) surely it was just grenades or some other explosive they were throwing out of them.

Partly true, at the start of the war they threw grenades and artillery rounds out of the plane. Later they used bombs attached under the plane. The accuracy of those attacks were very low and it was more effective to shoot with the MGs at the ground forces.

Napsáno Clovek30, 11.08.2011 at 10:49

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

. . .
Well, being the World war 1 buff I try to be, tech was a very important part of world war 1, as all modern wars were. Tanks were made to break through trench barriers and move troops to enemy positions- without being destroyed. They added artillery later on. People first thought of making "Landships", name says it all. But they were impractical for the time, they wouldve been too large and too prone to attack. Another good example of a failed expieriment is the Tsar tank, a personal favorite of mine. The Tsar tank had 2 large wheels in the front, and a small one in the back. In my eyes, if they had increased the things speed by different methods and armoring the wheels it couldv'e been a success on the battlefield- imageine one of those big late-1800's bicycles going 20mph directly at you, only its 25 meters tall, amored, and has a huge cannon .

Technology was and is important in every war troughout the history of mankind. However, the technology, especially tanks, had less impact on the war as you might think. As the creator of the "WW1 Scenario" you sure know that tanks were very vulnerable and unreliable and could only move very slow in the battlefield. In the first deployment of tanks by the British forces 17 of 49 tanks were lost before reaching the battle. A lot of innovations have been archieved, but only a few of them were effective in the war. Most of it was in very early stages and prototypes sent to the battlefield. In fact, tanks and airplanes weren't ready for battle untill the 1930's, were they and the art to use them has been "perfected".
Also the Tsar tank had a max. speed of 10-11 mph on the streets, it was unable to move through terrain, was very vulnerable and due it's giant front wheels it was hard to manoeuvre. A nice fav you picked there.

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 02:02

Honestly tech was a VERY important aspect of the great war- hell if the germans deployed the A7 earlier they couldve won (if they also made enough to detroy the american war machine )

War is not as simple as it is in Afterwind my friend. The A7 wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, nor would have any other technology in research of that time. By 1916 France was close to collapse and with the revolution in Russia there was a real chance for the "central powers" to win the war. To avoid this (and the loss of a lot of dollars invested into the warchest of Paris and London), the USA had to intervene. After the Intervention of the USA there was no real chance to win this war anymore. Not even an A7 would have changed this. While still holding the western front Germany agreed to the 14-Points-Plan of Wilson (which sadly lead to the betrayal of Versailles), to end this tiring and bloodthirsty war. Even if the Germans were able to fight the Americans off, they likely would have agreed to a peace treaty as they got dragged into a war they didn't want.

What if America had not stepped in and it turned into the german empire v british empire? the germans would win! after the war they would have annexed austro-hungary and parts of the ottoman empire most likely, and would be the dominant power in africa and europe! they would have supported the the soviets but secretly the whites to keep the russian revolution going on long enough to compltely destroy russia, then once russia was never going to be a threat again- annexation or invasion!

That is way off topic, were talking about Tech, not alternate history my friend.

There was somethign the british used, a huge flamethrower, also they dug under german trenches and put bombs and had the biggest explosion in history since then (non - nuclear).

Napsáno Garde, 11.08.2011 at 13:32

What if America had not stepped in and it turned into the german empire v british empire? the germans would win! after the war they would have annexed austro-hungary and parts of the ottoman empire most likely, and would be the dominant power in africa and europe! they would have supported the the soviets but secretly the whites to keep the russian revolution going on long enough to compltely destroy russia, then once russia was never going to be a threat again- annexation or invasion!

Well, personally I think such predictions are hard to make. America had to act as American banks gave a lot of loans to France and England. Losing those loans surely would have resulted into a national economic crisis. Also a to big and strong German Empire wouldn't be in the intereset for the USA. However, speculations and therefore worthless.

Russia was actually never a threat to Germany. Until 1890 the Russian and German Empire even had a pact to ensure their neutrality to each other. However, when the Russian Empire asked to extend the treaty, Germany refused to attract Britain and help Austria-Hungary to keep their influence in the balkans.
(Besides that Kaiser Willhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II were relatives and had good personal relationships).
After the loss of the "Reinsurance Treaty", the relations between Germany and Russia began to worsen. There have been a few other issues between Germany and Russia, but I think I'm already going to deep into detail. Willhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II still tried to prevent war, as you can see if you read the "Willy-Nicky Correspondence".

Napsáno Aristosseur, 11.08.2011 at 15:38

There was somethign the british used, a huge flamethrower, also they dug under german trenches and put bombs and had the biggest explosion in history since then (non - nuclear).

The flamethrower you refer to is the Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector, which was really a huge thing. . Damn, it could unleash hell on earth.
There is an interesting documentary on Youtube about it. However it was only experimental and only used in the battle of Somme.
The explosion you talk about might be prior to the battle of Messines, if someone is interested to read about it. :3

Napsáno Snighpor, 11.08.2011 at 15:33

That is way off topic, were talking about Tech, not alternate history my friend.

Sorry for going Offtopic again.

Good thing you could recall their names, since this is a technology topic those are things we should talk about, for example I was surprised about the explosion prior to Messines battle, I wasn't aware of such techniques being used.
Also of interest are the intelligence operations, which on WW1 I know nothing, but if anyone is interested he should read on WW2 operation mincemeant and agent Zigzag, they make James Bond believable.

Napsáno BASED Ironail, 11.08.2011 at 04:04

3000 out of 4 million? Doesn't seem like bombing was a very big part of WWI

4 million peaple didnt die in WW1 10million peaple outta the 20 million who fought and more than half of these deaths by disises and infection

Just to clear some things up:
I'm not saying technology was insignificant in WWI; technology played a gigantic role. Artillery was the single largest cause of death during the war, and was a major cause of the war of attrition that WWI became. Machine guns made in the image of the Maxim gun devastated advancing infantry. Trains and trucks were able to deliver supplies faster than ever before, further extending the long, drawn out war that WWI became. Supply lines could make or break battles, which commonly went on for months at end.

However, much of the technology developed during the war was not significant. Planes were primarily used for reconnaissance and filled an important role, but this concept was developed before the war as well. Eventually, machine guns were mounted onto these small planes, which could not carry much in the way of firepower. And although "dogfights" between pilots were amazing to watch at the time, they didn't actually matter in the grand scheme of the whole war. Fixed wing aircraft were invented in 1903 and developed primarily before the war. The "bombers" in WWI were a complete joke. They killed so few people they are statistically irrelevant. The zeppelin bombings had more impact than did the planes.

Tanks were developed during the war, but what can be said about their effectiveness in WWI? Tanks broke down more often than they worked. They were unreliable, slow, and bulky. They outlived their usefulness as well: by 1918, Germans could deal with tanks effectively, having researched anti-tank weapons. At the Battle of Amiens, the first major battle of armored warfare in World War I, 72% of the allied tanks were destroyed in the first 4 days of fighting. The only large scale naval battle, the Battle of Jutland, was inconclusive. Poison gas had no counter, but was used in very small amounts and killed very few soldiers, especially compared to artillery.

Ultimately, technology played a major role in World War I; it's just that the technology developed during the war was not particularly important. These technologies would be improved upon greatly in the interwar period and change the face of warfare as we knew it, but that happened after WWI. What I am saying is that the changes in tactics in WWI (particularly trench warfare) are more significant than technological advances. I am not saying that tactics were more important in WWI, because I don't think they are. Technology dominated for much of the war because it was extremely powerful, but the tactics meshed with the technology (albeit awkwardly) to largely change how wars were fought.

In response to some earlier comments:

Snighpor: 557 people were killed in the entire war by bombing raids. I'm not sure what your source is.

Gardevoir: Tanks were not used until the late stages of the war. Gas release artillery shells were invented in 1905, and artillery was used throughout the war. In fact, the development of the tank was largely due to artillery. As I said before, tanks were incredibly unreliable and were not of any significance. The Red Baron was in a "fighter" plane, effectively a normal reconnaissance plane with a forward-mounted machine gun. Finally, the Germans had no interest (or very little) in tanks. They did field a large number of anti-tank weapons, however, which were highly effective. If America had not stepped in, the incredibly low morale and decreased production of the Germans (which was becoming increasingly evident by the end of the war) would most likely have done them in.

Ordnung: I like the cut of your jib. And I don't believe historically there would have been any way for America to not eventually intervene, even without the Zimmermann telegram (and Lusitania sinking). I definitely agree with you about the technology in World War I itself; most new tech was still not fully developed. The interwar period served to improve on the technology and mechanize warfare.

Technology was certainly a huge aspect of the war. Also important were the tactics and mindsets of the commanders. They were veterans of 19th century wars (for Germany and France especially, the Franco-Prussian War). They had all these new weapons and armaments at their disposal, but were using tactics from the past.

In fact: the German strategy of attack, the Schlieffen Plan involved rolling through Belgium straight into Paris (as had worked so effortlessly in 1871). This was made much more difficult in that they had to advance on mounted machine guns instead of a line of musket and horseback soldiers.