Development of military technology without the world wars

[Carl Schwamberger]

The US Army is not influenced by the French 1917-1918. It retains its 3", the 4.7" & other cannon designs. As with other nations techniques for massing artillery in seconds do not develop. Fire support from cannon remains oriented to individual batteries to specific battalions or regiments of infantry. Massing of cannon fires remains a slow clerical based process.

The ratio of MG to infantry remains low. In 1914 the standard was two MMG per rifle battalion, about a 1 to 500 ratio. A LMG would develop out f the colonial wars, tho most would be low ammo capacity weapons like the BAR or French Chauchat. High fire MG like the MG34 may not develop.

 

[MattII]

The ratio of MG to infantry remains low. In 1914 the standard was two MMG per rifle battalion, about a 1 to 500 ratio. A LMG would develop out f the colonial wars, tho most would be low ammo capacity weapons like the BAR or French Chauchat. High fire MG like the MG34 may not develop.

Not buying it. The British Lewis Gun (1911) put out 600 rounds/minute, and came with 47- and 97-round drums, while the German Bergmann MG15 (1910) put out 500-600 rounds/minute, and was belt-fed. And besides those, all the prewar MGs (aside the Chauchat) came with 30-round magazines.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Major Lewis of the US Army designed the Lewis gun as a aircraft weapon. It was rejected by the Army Ordnance & languished until the Brits picked it up as a wartime expedient . The Bergman MG15 was designed in 1910 with water jacket for cooling and was fitted with a tripod. It was redesigned as a aircraft MG, & then adapted post 1914 as a light infantry MG. A thirty round magazine is not much. The assault rifles I carried 1974 to 1988 came standard with 30 rd magazines. Even on the slow fire single shot course you could run through that in a few minutes.

 

[MattII]

That they didn't have weapons like the MG34 in 1914 doesn't mean they wouldn't have developed them. Guns like the Lewis and MG15 were, if not at all similar, at least a step in that direction.

 

[Dorknought]

Nuclear weapons and chembio weapons would be developed for the purposes of colonial policing.

Declaration of the Hague Convention of 1899 had banned "projectiles the sole objective of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases." and the Hague Convention of 1907 banned the use of "poisons or poisonous weapons".

It's really unlikely that any power is going to break this in a colonial matter. We're talking Imperial powers not 'space wizards' where they don't have the imperial werewithall of tactical and strategic weapons covering a full range of needs so their choices are not limited to "hand to hand combat with swords" and "blow up the planet".

 

[Dorknought]

Mass armies prior to WW1 were 'the schools of the nation' instilling what ever 'national spirit' that the authorities at the time wanted. The man power was there to be consumed in a massive 'make work' sort of exercise. Manpower was cheap, equipment was expensive. You have to move to professional armies to flip that around.

The 1914 Battalion of 1000 rifles being taught the 'spirit of the bayonet' made way for the Battalion of 1918 with 38 Lewis guns and it didn't matter how many rifles were left and the bayonet opened cans. A 1914 Battalion commander would be completely bewildered and lost on the 1918 frontline but a 1918 Battalion commander would recognise many of the battlefield attributes evident today; fire and manoeuvre, supply, logistics, evacuating casualties, air support, cooperation and supply, radio comms etc.

The problem is not technology but leadership. The Navy, the largest heavy engineering organisation in the Empire invented the Tank - turrets, casemates, engines, hatches not doors, deck not floor etc. Even the RNAS took the first armoured cars to France and Belgium and drew up the spec for a strategic bomber. The memo for an independent airforce of bombers was written by an Admiral. No army was going to do something that frightens the horses. It's not really in their interest to innovate if it means just 38 dudes replace the 1000 they use to have.

Extend the naval influence further and look at Rolls Royce. They got into the aero engine market at the request of the Navy but only as liquid cooled engines not air cooled as the Royal Navy wanted. HP went from 250hp in 1915 to 300hp in 1917 for the Eagle series. Similar for the Falcon but the Condor was about 675hp in 1918. This was for a bomber to reach Berlin but could also be any large commercial aircraft to carry a large payload a long distance.

Consider that the Military didn't have the fastest aircraft in the world. They were several years behind the bleeding-edge tech. The other thing that the Military needed was aircraft that had a lifecycle of about 5 years. During war, this compressed down to 1 or 2 years. Having said that, the Military strived for aircraft that were maintainable in the field and easy to fly for the vast numbers of pilots. Without the war there would be a smaller number of more highly trained pilots.

Another thing to consider would be as theories around airpower evolve, what would be banned by international agreement? The Hague convention was held every 7 years and due in 1915. There was already a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons".

In defense of the military mind, it can also work things out for itself without war. The RN is an example, most of the ships required over the 1920's and 1930's had been scoped or prototyped prior to WW1, suggesting that they didn't need war experience to develop. The Lightfoot class leader of 1913-14 was seen as the right size for all future destroyers because it had the required endurance to stay with the fleet for 3-4 day sorties and sea-keeping. It's the same tonnage and dimensions as the later Scott class leader that provided the prototype of most Destroyers built in the 1920s and 30's in many navies.

Without war, the classic 'u-boat' was fully developed and matured by 1914. Compare the German U43 class designed pre-WW1 and under construction in 1914 with the later Type VII refined during the 1920's and 30's:
Type U43 - 725 tons surfaced 940t submerged
Type VII - 769 tons surfaced 871t submerged
Type U43 - 65m long, 6.2m beam
Type VII - 67m long, 6.2m beam,
Type U43 - 2,400 hp 17.1 knots, 1200 hp - 9.1 knots submerged
Type VII - 2,800 hp 17.7 knots, 750 hp - 7.6 knots submerged
Type U43 - Range 9,400miles at 8knots, 55miles at 5knts submerged
Type VII - Range 8,500 miles at 10knots, 80 miles submerged at 4 knots
Type U43 - 4TT 2bow/2stern, 88mm deck gun
Type VII - 5TT 4bow/1stern, 88mm deck gun
Type U43 - Crew 36
Type VII - Crew 44
Type U43 - 164ft depth
Type VII - 750ft depth

As you can see, 20 years of development went into structural improvements following war experience to increase diving depth from 164ft to 750ft. Why? Because concealment as a defense wasn't enough, great depth was required too. The second war showed that great speed at depth was also required and thus the Elektro Boot was required. However, the high speed submarine had been developed in WW1 by the RN - the R class submarine from completely different requirements ie. to ambush submarines.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

There is a distinction between the technological development and the tactical development of all the things. The point about artillery is well made it requires a lot of separate technologies to be integrated to make late WW1 fires possible, and without the relatively static nature of WW1 its hard to see how that comes together. All the armies believed in rapidly moving warfare, home by Christmas.

That said the guns are likely to be there and slowly improving communications technology which includes aircraft - which leads to fighters seeking out the spotters and so forth.

Dont forget the idea of air observation is a thing from balloons on.

In terms of small arms the French and the British certainly were looking at 'automatic rifles' pre war but by that they probably meant a semi auto rifle the French had technically adopted the Meunier in early 1914 and as soon as one does everyone else will as soon as the money is available.

LMG like the Hotchkiss portatative had already been adopted for some units ( cavalry, landing parties) and the Lewis by now is a BSA product line and is adopted for both land and air service at the same time - and for land as a replacement for the Vickers at battalion level. But these are machine guns that are light not interwar LMG its the practical experience that results in the squad tactics. The practical issue is load, in combat an infantryman can carry about 30lb and if you are carrying ammo to make an LMG work at full rate of far you are not carrying ammo to make a semi auto rifle work at its ROF so whats the best option? its not actually clear and the difference is highly variable depending on who you are fighting.

You will get motorisation from those that can, and probably as fast as they can, horses die and need lots of fodder and water so I suspect the French and British and Italians and probably Americans who at least sometimes operate in places without lots of water and have access to petrol will tend to increase motorisation with the colonial and small armies leading the way as this is money not manpower and its a lot cheaper to motorise 3 divisions than 300.

If you want a rapid war then motorising the artillery makes sense, as does putting it under armour as a direct fire weapon. which if you don't have all the bells and whistles for indirect fire makes sense so various forms of armoured assault artillery and anti armoured assault artillery.

Tanks and armoured cars - which already exist as does the tanks more robust movement system but without the trench crossing requirement which leads to something like the FT 17 and lots of people have a need for a bulletproof vehicle for attacking Mad Mahdi's forts or equivalent. And at some point there will be tankette types and a gun armour race as soon as an opposing army fields them.

And generally this will be the issue. The wars fought will tend to be colonial so the experience will come from there and be transferred in until there is another Balkan or Russo Japanese war fought with interesting cast offs but these will be expensive armies and for a major land power there will be an issue of transitioning from a horse to a motorised army in its entirety which is not just the cost but also the ability to sustain a POL oriented army. Until then its the lessons of the Italian Turkish War that will be learned.

Air forces will probably be a mix of specialist recon/bombers - Say like the Hart, with fighter variants like the Demon until the tech develops with multifunction bomber transport types - JU52/SM79 that derive from commercial aircraft.

 

[marathag]

Horses still used ?

US Farmers in the Midwest were eager adopters, with numbers of horses and mules starting its drop in 1913.
This would continue without the War.
In 1914, Iowa was the #6 in registered automobiles, and there wouldn't be a paved road between towns until 1918.
Lt. Col. Eisenhower did the first automotive Transcontinental Convoy of 81 motor vehicles for the Army, that averaged nearly 60 miles a day, from DC to San Francisco.
Not bad since there wasn't a highway system yet, that was mostly on trails, as nothing on the 'Lincoln Highway was really surfaced between Illinois and Nevada, or even marked with signposts. 82 vehicles finished the trip in two months, beating the time of an earlier private funded Convoy in 1915 by a month.

 

[marathag]

e R class submarine from completely different requirements ie. to ambush submarines

The US also decided on higher undersea speeds for the S Boats

 

[Aghasverov]

There was a good thread on this sometime last year, but I think the topic was "all tech", and not purely military tech. I believe my conclusion at the time was maybe a 15-year "lag" between a world of no-world-wars, and our OTL world (just a guess on my part...) But, thinking right now, I'm hard pressed to come up with any technological advances that would've simply never happened in a TL with no world wars... wondering if anyone else can think of any...

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Nuclear weapons. Without the perceived threat of active enemies developing them during wartime it's unlikely that any government would be willing to spend the ruinous amounts of money needed to develop them. More likely in my opinion is that rather than spend the money potential nuclear weapons are treated like chemical weapons in the international treaties and banned before development.

 

[Aghasverov]

Nuclear weapons. Without the perceived threat of active enemies developing them during wartime it's unlikely that any government would be willing to spend the ruinous amounts of money needed to develop them. More likely in my opinion is that rather than spend the money potential nuclear weapons are treated like chemical weapons in the international treaties and banned before development.

One could only hope But, the theoretical framework is already in place before WWII...
And as we saw with chemical weapons in WWI, being proscribed didn't keep them from being deployed not long after the shooting began.

 

[MattII]

The problem is not technology but leadership. The Navy, the largest heavy engineering organisation in the Empire invented the Tank - turrets, casemates, engines, hatches not doors, deck not floor etc. Even the RNAS took the first armoured cars to France and Belgium and drew up the spec for a strategic bomber. The memo for an independent airforce of bombers was written by an Admiral. No army was going to do something that frightens the horses. It's not really in their interest to innovate if it means just 38 dudes replace the 1000 they use to have.

The push for lighter machine guns in all the major powers doesn't hold with that 'stick-in-the-mud' theory.

Consider that the Military didn't have the fastest aircraft in the world. They were several years behind the bleeding-edge tech. The other thing that the Military needed was aircraft that had a lifecycle of about 5 years. During war, this compressed down to 1 or 2 years. Having said that, the Military strived for aircraft that were maintainable in the field and easy to fly for the vast numbers of pilots. Without the war there would be a smaller number of more highly trained pilots.

Depends. Without the war there would be likely to be more airlines earlier, so more reasonably trained pilots.

Another thing to consider would be as theories around airpower evolve, what would be banned by international agreement? The Hague convention was held every 7 years and due in 1915. There was already a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons".

Sometimes things are banned because they're pointless. I don't think you're going to get a ban on armed aircraft, because everyone wants them.

There was a good thread on this sometime last year, but I think the topic was "all tech", and not purely military tech. I believe my conclusion at the time was maybe a 15-year "lag" between a world of no-world-wars, and our OTL world (just a guess on my part...) But, thinking right now, I'm hard pressed to come up with any technological advances that would've simply never happened in a TL with no world wars... wondering if anyone else can think of any...

Tanks would be delayed, because the technology of the 1910s simply wasn't really ready for it. Yes we got tanks then, but only because of the stalemate of the Western Front. Elsewhere, tanks would be big, slow (both tactically and strategically) maintenance hogs.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Nuclear weapons. Without the perceived threat of active enemies developing them during wartime it's unlikely that any government would be willing to spend the ruinous amounts of money needed to develop them.

The sums would be ruinous in a crash effort with 1940s technology and no pre-existing nuclear technology base. But it was evident after the discovery of fission that such bombs would be possible, and in any case that nuclear reactors would be possible and useful militarily. And that means you'll be getting nuclear reactors, nuclear enrichment, the whole shebang, everything needed to build a bomb except actually building a bomb, just more slowly and with a lower peak budget than Manhattan. Ultimately, you'd probably still get a bomb in the 1950s or 1960s, it would just look more "normal" in origin.

 

[wietze]

Tracks are inherently superior to wheels in some context, militaries don't need world war level experience to realize that

No, but they will need some persuading that those terrains will actually be ones they might end up fighting on.

i expect armoured cars to be developed first since those are perfect for policing.
then they get experience that cars and truck have trouble with some terrain, causing the use of halftracks (the Kégresse system was already developed pre ww1).
add to that the experience with tracked movers (ww1 or not, they will find out that they are perfect for pulling big pieces of artillery) and before you know it you have something on tracks.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I haven't seen anyone address the pace of development without the incentives of a war being fought. All the items mentioned would probably still be developed but how fast would they be developed and adopted?

I think that one year of wartime development is equal to 5-10 years of peacetime development. So the aviation developments made between 1914-1919 might take til 1939 or even 1950 to come around. there just isn't the incentive. Automotive technology may not have such an extreme delay because the advantages could be seen in commercial applications. Major cities were having problems with the large amounts of manure generated by all the horses used in them. Maybe a 'Clean up the cities' movement would push motor trucks (or electric ones?) to get the 'dirty, foul animals off the streets'.

 

[stevej713]

Nuclear weapons. Without the perceived threat of active enemies developing them during wartime it's unlikely that any government would be willing to spend the ruinous amounts of money needed to develop them. More likely in my opinion is that rather than spend the money potential nuclear weapons are treated like chemical weapons in the international treaties and banned before development.

I disagree. Nuclear weaponry is too much of a silver bullet to be left alone, and as nuclear energy becomes more commonplace, creating nuclear weaponry will become cheaper and easier. Also in regards to chemical weapons, most of the nations involved in WWII had large stockpiles available. They only chose not to use chemical weapons out of fear of retaliation, not because they were banned.

 

[MattII]

i expect armoured cars to be developed first since those are perfect for policing.
then they get experience that cars and truck have trouble with some terrain, causing the use of halftracks (the Kégresse system was already developed pre ww1).
add to that the experience with tracked movers (ww1 or not, they will find out that they are perfect for pulling big pieces of artillery) and before you know it you have something on tracks.

Yep. Tanks will be delayed (see issues of maintenance, speed, etc), but they will get developed, eventually.

I haven't seen anyone address the pace of development without the incentives of a war being fought. All the items mentioned would probably still be developed but how fast would they be developed and adopted?

I think that one year of wartime development is equal to 5-10 years of peacetime development. So the aviation developments made between 1914-1919 might take til 1939 or even 1950 to come around. there just isn't the incentive. Automotive technology may not have such an extreme delay because the advantages could be seen in commercial applications. Major cities were having problems with the large amounts of manure generated by all the horses used in them. Maybe a 'Clean up the cities' movement would push motor trucks (or electric ones?) to get the 'dirty, foul animals off the streets'.

This is a fallacy. International competition (which was riding high pre-WW1) is as much a driver for change as international conflict, and much less bloody and expensive. ITTL the Russians will be flying Igor Sikorsky's Ilya Muromets' as airliners in 1914, which everyone will see, and want. The other big powers will throw money into aviation, hoping for bigger/faster/longer ranged/more luxurious/etc. airliners. This will push the bleeding edge as fast as any war.

 

[marathag]

Depends. Without the war there would be likely to be more airlines earlier, so more reasonably trained pilot

Without the War, US Aviation is held back from the Curtiss-Wright patent dispute, and no free German Aeronautical Patents as War Reparations. Because if the War, the US stepped in, nationalized all the aircraft patents, then made them available to all aircraft companies at no charge, and got the bonus German Patents in 1919

 

[MattII]

Without the War, US Aviation is held back from the Curtiss-Wright patent dispute, and no free German Aeronautical Patents as War Reparations. Because if the War, the US stepped in, nationalized all the aircraft patents, then made them available to all aircraft companies at no charge, and got the bonus German Patents in 1919

That's counter-balanced by the European aviation industries being decidedly stronger.