Airships are going to dominate the long distance airline business until the late 30's and both the RN and German Navy will be using them to patrol the sea lanes and provide security for distant colonies.
Development of military technology without the world wars
- Thread starter Otto Kretschmer
- Start date
plus no world wars, means likely no spanish flu, so more population, creative minds surviving. so a bit more inventing.
and no or much delayed decolonisation, meaning thing being developed to maintain these long distance connections.
It depends how fast airliners advance without the war. Airliners were already faster than airships, and that margin will only increase with time.
No post-war depression either.
Airships need a fair amount of ground support though, and are rather vulnerable to weather.
Last edited:
considering the holes in shares legislation, sooner or later there will be a bubble triggering one (maybe a local us/north-american one).
speculating with shares with borrowed money can continue only for so long until it goes bad.
That would likely happen regardless, whereas a post-war depression, at least for those companies that produce armaments is near-certain.
since there are no WWs, their amount would be limited anyway (many simply didnt go into arms production), and they could always diversify into civilian stuff.
Yep. During the war, companies get railroaded onto war-production (regardless of what they were doing before), often hiring on more staff to cope with the demand. Then war ends, and suddenly they've got too many staff, and no market to sell to, leading to layoffs, and sometimes even bankruptcy. And that's the Victors, the losers have it even harder, as they're often lumbered with reparations and industrial limitations.
Last edited:
Why? armoured cars and armoured mobile MG posts are already a thing, the issue is engine capability ( is it better than its horse drawn equivalent). Holt tractors have already been trialed as artillery movers, but not as efficient as a horse team. There are both Australian and Austrian tracked afv proposals pre WW1. Estienne is advocating for mobile vehicle mounted 75mm in August 1914 and the physics means as soon as you try that a wheeled car can't manage the ground pressures. Half tracks actually follow after both multi wheel vehicles and full tracks intended to give mobility at a cheaper cost so its not the obvious solution.
The most common tank of WW1 is the FT ( 1916) which comes about because of the involvement of automobile companies not Admiralty committees. - The Size of the initial British designs ( apart from the idiot level 300 ton one which is cancelled as soon as a grown up looks at the idea) is because of a) trying to build it around an existing Holt Tractor b) an initial requirement to carry either a large number of troops or a light artillery piece and c) the trench crossing requirement ( or shell hole) which only matters if there are trenches and most importantly d) WE WANT THEM RIGHT NOW.
Them's not the problems armies have pre WW1. Which is key question, whats the problem why do you want to spend finite resources on this and not that? and when do you need it?
They are envisaging a mobile war of meeting engagements so having something that can keep up with the marching troops, and assault in the face of massed rifle and MG fire and cross the available bridges is important. The richer colonial powers who typically fight outnumbered but with higher tech will see a need for a bullet proof armed vehicle that can be moved around the world where bridges are rare and offloaded at primitive ports with limited capacity cranes.
So the French are introducing the Meunier semi auto rifle which vastly increases their infantry firepower, what's the German counter?
and so on.
Russian, Austrian and British officers all put proposals forward, but all were rejected. The issue with tanks in the 1910s was multiple, not just engine power (which governed top speed and tactical mobility), but also operational range (before something broke), maintenance requirements, etc. Tanks would eventually come, but without the bloody deadlock of trench warfare, they would come much later than OTL, when the engine power was there for them to outpace the men, and they were hopefully a bit more reliable.
Tracked vehicles have higher maintenance requirements than wheeled vehicles, making them unideal for colonial conflicts.
I don't believe the Germans tried to develop a semi-automatic rifle. The development of the Bergmann MG15 seems to me they were approaching the 'increasing firepower' issue at more of a squad-based level, rather than at the level of the individual soldier.
Post Hoc argument. Estienne amongst others is looking at mounting field guns in 1914, well before trenches are a thing and the Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade and the RNAS AC squadrons are established practically immediately. Thereafter its a power weight thing but the general problem of crossing open ground has been identified, motorising under armour on a truck chassis is proven and the practical limits of wheels on obstacle crossing - which is as much field walls as trenches for a wheeled vehicle - identified. And it takes Renault about year or about a year and part time work for maybe another year to come out with the first FT, with nearly 3,000 being produced in the year after.
The Issue is giving the problem to a manufacturer familiar with what can be built rather than dreaming up a requirement bespoke to highly specific and unintended battlefield conditions and asking them to deliver something. At this point in time with no war the issue will be mobility in encounter battles and enemy firepower and you are likely to get a vehicle manufacturer proposing a private venture - as Vickers did post war as the military speccing it de novo.
No the superior mobility of tracked vehicles in the 20s and 30s mean that make the FT British lights and Italian and Japanese lights ideal for colonial conflicts. Its only with superior tyres, better multi wheel drives and other advances in the late 30s that A/C come back into the mix.
Paul Mauser did but never got beyond prototype rejected at trials except for the 1916 which was too expensive even in wartime and did not like dirt at all, but then they have the least motivation to OTL, they are reequipping the artillery, having to pay for a navy and not yet facing an enemy that is so equipping. Also they have the least modern combat experience of any army so working off increasingly theoretical model of infantry combat. To a large extent so are the French but they are in need of replacing the Berthier and spent a lot of time working on needs and a new cartridge with adoption in 1910 and first production scheduled for 1914, which was then cancelled due to war. No war - or no long war scare then its going to be troop trialed at least and they seem to have settled on a semi auto as a minimum and the 7mm cartridge.
The Bergmann, no. Its a failed competitor to the MG08 ( and water cooled at the time) sorta picked up as an aircraft MG then used in a ground mount with significant jamming and overheating problems - its a German Chauchat in that respect, nothing wrong with it but not an LMG even if by accident like the Lewis ( which could fire continuously for more than twice as long) then a failed competitor to the MG 15 and mainly used in places where water supply can be an issue and on secondary fronts The German army much preferred the MG15.
OFC without the war the Madsen is also viable as a start point but again its a chauchat role until you start getting the quick change barrel et al and that means someone has to identify the need for a portable MG that can do sustained fire rather than a more distant sustained fire with forward troops getting their firepower from their own rifles. The US army for example never really manages this, and arguably neither do the soviets or Italians. The British Germans ( mostly) , French and Japanese do so for major armies its about 50/50 with the ones with Western Front experience ( and the Japanese Port Arthur works the same way?) favouring the LMG/Rifle squad model - ?maybe because of the need for troops to throw grenades a lot so they cant spend time shooting.
Thats not to say they could not have moved on to an air cooled LMG but it needs a total revision of infantry tactics to make it worthwhile and, especially for a conscript army most of whose troops will have been trained several years ago its actually easier to keep the tactics and up the individuals firepower than to build a whole new tactical drill based on an unproven weapon system ( the squad lmg) and retrain everyone, especially as the generals have no idea what the new tactics should be.
If you are being faced with the French with Meuniers and the the Russians with Federovs the temptation will be to match that - also applies to the British who would be switching to .276 with no war. and everyone trying to work out tactics but both the UK and French have significant needs in areas where water supply for a maxim is an issue and the German's don't to the same extent so even if they dont have the tactical system they may have the weapons that enable the system should the need arise.
The tactical system is really important. In 1914 almost all field artillery was firing shrapnel with a time fuze and heavier ( 150mm +) might have HE with a percussion fuze exploding afte the shell had gone through a significant amount of concrete, but there is not a lot of it and it fires infrequently. By the end of the war most artillery was firing HE with a mix of super quick, quick, delay or time fuze often the same actual fuze with different settings by the million, without a war what's the driver?
No, anything developed after the beginning of WW1 is post hoc ITTL.
The second issue is getting the army to want the damned thing.
Superior mobility doesn't matter worth a damn if they keep breaking down and can't be easily maintained.
Okay, but clearly the intent was there in all the major powers.
That will be an issue, at least, if Trench warfare ever develops ITTL.
Therefore anything dependent on the problems of WW1 has to be discounted, large slow breakthrough tanks intended to crush massive barbed and resist massed machine guns for example
But look at the problems of the continental armies of WW1 from say 1910 they are all about mobility and for the French winning the encounter battle by pushing forward massed artillery fires to shoot in the infantry ( who would then entrench and and beat the counterattack - did not work so well in practice.) Estienne is the former head of the Artillery school of Grenoble, one of the major technical innovators of the period plucked from there to establish the aviation section of the French army and develops the initial methods for Ariel observation, and a push forward armoured shield for infantry. When a guy of that background and status says what we need is a 75 on an all terrain vehicle its a pretty good bet thats going to come up sooner rather than later and for mobile warfare in context his comments are made after maybe 2 days fighting.
At the same time Brutinel famous as a surveyor, geologist and newspaper editor raises the Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade, which seems to suggest even rank amateurs are interested in and supported by their governments in raising mobile armoured forces.
The key thing about Estiennes comment is - capable de se mouvoir en tout terrain . You cant do that with wheels at all. there are small walls, ditches, slopes and such like,
Which is a fair point, but the unreliability is a function of the weight vs engine power and the track/suspension the British Mediums are 30 ton. A Renault FT1 is 6.5 t precisely because Renault who knows about engine issues thought anything over 7 t would be unreliable, and it turned out to be very reliable, in service for decades and as soon as people are not required to produce items for use on the battlefield as soon as possible specced by amateurs they will be looking at development of tracks suspension, not giving the crew heatstroke and CO poisoning. and such fripperies.
Not to say you wont get armoured trucks Pierce Arrow do a whole range of things for example but they can't move off road or climb the grass on small slopes much less suppress mad mullahs or Rifs in places with no roads. Dont forget that 4 WD is an innovation and has all the same development issues, and cant cross small walls, etc.
Oh they will want it, the issue will be the extent to which it is funded but the major militaries are very accepting of new technologies. Where you get resistance its less we dont want the new and more we dont want to get rid of the old because we know that works and there is not enough enough resource to have both around mostly. For the age everyone goes in hard for radios, telephones, aircraft trucks machine guns, as many as you can get right now dammit.
But dont forget it takes he US about 15 years to finally get the M1, the Meunier has fundamental flaws, the Federov also and Mauser never succeeds I suspect what would happen is Meunier is issued, then everyone else will accept something arguably subpar not much better than the bolt actions and never fully issues it until say 1925 when someone cracks the problem ( OTL the MLE1917 arguably)
I think light fast fighters would continue to be developed, but range won’t be a factor in their design. So I could see nationalistic air racing become the new F1. There would be the continued development of long range bombers as scout/fleet defense, with the idea that bombers can defend themselves (either with speed or guns, or both) leading to attempts to build “battleships of the sky”. This would include large flying boats.
Also Zeppelins would continue to be viable alternatives, especially if helium replaces hydrogen.
ric350
Also Zeppelins would continue to be viable alternatives, especially if helium replaces hydrogen.
ric350
Paradoxer
Banned
Military technology development would be more steady and have less rapid leaps in the haste of war. Before industrialization war was actually often counterproductive to technological innovation at times because your destroying a lot in process plus youth generation who died as soldiers instead of few becoming engineers, doctors, and scientists. No reason the US let “bougie” people buy their way out of draft or allowed college students exceptions to draft.
Golden ages and “long 1900th century” without large scale wars usually see great technological jumps or innovation.
The major difference is a bunch of stuff sees civilian and commercial use before military ones instead of other way around. The military industrial in US still drains a outrageous amount of scientists(some like 70s percent of them). Also it’s easier to convert stuff to military use then it is to convert military to civilian. Usually. For example jets and rockets still get invented just so people can travel faster. Very universal and simple goal. So the first jet plane might be commercial one or privately made.
Additionally, technology innovation without war likely means Europeans are even more ignorant to changes of large scale modern warfare when it happens but they probably get “practiced” in its colonial anti partisan activities
Great, you now have tanks that are semi-bulletproof, and can go places nothing else can. Now how do you support them? Tanks need fuel, and plenty of it. They also need plenty of ammunition, they need spare parts, etc. If something does end up getting produced before the 20s, it's likely to be small in number, and more experimental than actually intended for serious deployment. the 20s is probably going to be a different matter though.
The FT17 started development no earlier than late 1915, over a year into the war. It was also only capable of ~7 km/hour maximum, and could manage 60 km on its 95 litres of fuel. It also had no sideways traction on the tracks.
4WD doesn't have the same development issues, as it's quite different system. And yes, it will have mobility issues, but tanks have resupply issues, as once they're in accessible places, how do you get fuel/ammo/spare parts to them? Manpacking the stuff? Good luck.
Militaries want reliable weapons. Developing a gun is easy, developing one that can still work reliably after being dropped in the mud, quite another, especially if it has a lot of delicate parts.
Nah, probably still military, given the reliability, range and fuel-use issues.
Actually, sans WW1, they probably don't get stuck on 'trench warfare' mentality, which is a pretty transitory phase that comes between the invention of the machine gun, and the invention of the effective tank.
Last edited:
Yeah and horses and men need food and water and are not at all bullet proof, So the French do an FT and the Germans do an LK1 and the gun armour race begins. Do we need a heavily armoured bristling with machine guns or possibly cannon, infantry accompanying tank or a cavalry scout tank, can the scout role be covered by armoured cars or aeroplanes or both and does that leave an exploitation role for a cavalry tank, does the tactical mobility of petrol driven vehicles compensate for the need to divert men from bayonet strength to being mechanics, how do we train mechanics in a conscript army. Does that mean we have to draft socialists and Union members? is this the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it?
What you will probably get is limited and experimental numbers of early tanks and many more as soon as people get comfortable with the role they want but many more probably means enough numbers for experimental forces to prove tactics and drawing on the odd occasion when the very early models get used.
While all the powers will play the big three in this are Britain, France and Germany. They are richer have more relevant capacity ( although Britain and France especially way outperforms Imperial Germany in automotive and aircraft production at the start) and would probably keep the lead. Of those France and Germany both emphasise mobility at the time and the BEF is intended for worldwide use - not specifically Northern France, and its a hell of a lot easier to load the tanks trucks and petrol onto a ship and unload it in south Africa or Egypt or wherever than it is to round up the horses and fodder and water.
What you will have is tanks in the less than 7 class and less than 15 ton class the 30 ton WW1 Mediums are the abberation. Even the bigger French interwar tanks are private ventures not commissioned by the Army
I am not sure what your point is 7kph is enough to keep up with infantry and 60Km is a long way and a horse is slower, needs more weight in fodder and water and can be killed with single musket ball and they cant carry a rifle much less shoot one. A man can do 60km, but it will take a day, you will be knackered and wont have a machine gu or any armour.
But the mobility issues are fundamental It cannot go over a wall designed to keep livestock in, the world is full of livestock and walls just about the only places you don't get them are deserts, A wheeled vehicle will belly, a tracked one will not, game over,
The problem with inaccessible places is there are no people to fight there, although as FT were used in conflicts in Libya, Syria, Brasil the Atlas Mountains, Russia, Manchuria Estonia Turkey, Poland, China, Finland British lights in Abyssinia India, Afghanistan where they are found to be particulary suitable for policing, probably because you cant disable the tyres with a well placed spear in the night.
And nobody builds them at scale. The Brits build Lanchesters which look nice but there are maybe 50 build and sent off to Malaya - which has lots of good roads to move rubber around.
Actually they would normally do air resupply for food, fuel spares and mechanics.
Depends what you mean by fast. In 1913/14 modern aircraft move at about 90 mph and by 1918 about 120 mph but the Camel for example uses an engine first run in 1913 and has a 300 mile range, and the Hispano V8 which powers things through the war is run first in 1914 ad they can reach 120 mph ish mid war. There is a lot of learning but I suspect the main difference is in the tactical knowledge which will not be there and experimentation on construction and handling methods which will happen you just wont get 5,000 Camels maybe 500 more likely a lot less because the Snipe for example is just around the corner.
The battleship thing is a non starter, The defenders have no practical means of intercepting a bomber at height and the trade off of defensive armament for fuel or bombload is not worth it, The B17 is an exception, its design role is attacking a battlefleet where you can expect carrier fighters, its used for something else but thats the original plan.
Zeppelins are a non starter for most people. They are hard to build, unless you are Zeppelin, really big and die in flames as the carrier air strike bombs their bases or at least stands a reasonable chance of so doing. The RN had rejected dirigibles in 1913 and started looking at ways to get heavier than air machines with the range to attack zeppelin bases. Then dropped the seaplane launch for a carrier launch, but both had specced 'carry a torpedo' so you can tell what the RN was thinking.
It would not surprise me if the first line Air Forces were flying aircraft very similar to the ones they were flying in the mid 1920s anyway, just a different mix and probably more than OTL the difference being things will be economically stable but diplomatically less so. So without the war 60,000 men and 124 squadrons for the RAF is more reasonable and if there is a war or actual war the 348 Squadron 110,000 man possible far better to deter or bomb an enemy than send a million men to France. ( OTL the RAF 1918 strength was 150 sq.
Both Britain and Germany are spending about the same on defence pre WW1 except for the Boer war France slightly less but more as % of GDP but far less and far less wastage than in WW1.
Paradoxer
Banned
zeppelin could see much more citizen use especially if German economy stays strong. They don’t have to downgrade on parts or components of it. Make it more for leisure trips. Makes traveling by air much more comfortable(spacious) and like trains