Military Development Absent Great War

[Carl Schwamberger]

Assuming for a moment there is no significant European war from 1914 to 1920. Just a few very brief local conflicts, in the Balkans, Asia, or the usual colonial wars. Then what will be the developments in weapons and tactics globally for those six years. I am guessing weapons development will be slower, and in different directions than OTL due to WWI.

Thoughts, or links to threads where this has been discussed before...

 

[Generaloberst]

IIRC, before the war started, the Great Powers were desperately trying to one-up each other in aircraft designs.

 

[Anderman]

There will be no tanks as we now it in 1916 the amored car will come first. But the later tanks will be developed after a better doctrin how to use them. Maybe model this doctrin after the cavalery from the beginning and build the right tanks for this.

There will be no independend air forces like the RAF.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Probably the most significant change would be in tactics. Obviously, the tactical notions of the pre-War were...well, not correct, while the War itself was filled with various often very clever (though, of course, largely unsuccessful) attempts to break out of the trenches and "breakthrough". Without World War I, obviously none of that trial by fire would take place, so the notions of the pre-war would remain in place.

That being said, I suspect some of the developments which in actuality took place during and after the war would take place here as well. For instance, motorizing infantry and especially cavalry would still be attractive; without the economic damage and (apparent) demise of militarism caused by the war, perhaps motorization would be rather farther along than it actually was in most countries by the 1920s or 1930s. On the other hand, actual armored vehicles might be less well developed; motor vehicles would, I suspect, not be viewed so much as actual fighting instruments in themselves but instead as transports or (in the cavalry's case) reconnaissance instruments, in neither case coming very close to the fight. Armored cars would still be developed--they were prior to the War, after all--but I'm not sure that tanks would be developed, or at least developed to the same level that they actually were in the 1920s or 1930s by the 1920s or 1930s.

Overall I suspect it would be a rather mixed bag with, as I said, the most notable and important differences being in tactics and strategy, not equipment as such.

 

[Crimea]

Dare I suggest it... military zeppelins? Or would tacticians realise their flaws as a bombardment platform first?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Expect the development of light machine guns, semiauto rifles, perhaps submachine guns, better armored cars and the intro of APCs, SP artillery and towed artillery, the enhancement of motorized/mechanized divisions, and of course the development of aerial recon/bombing/fighters, though not to the degree of OTL. Tactics were being developed from the experiences of the Russo-Japanese war, which did influence fire-and-maneuver in all armies leading up to WW1, though it was also a matter of retiring the 'traditionalists' before the full program of reforms could be implemented, which was well on its way in 1914. I recommend reading the following to get an idea of what was in the offing:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Kaisers-A...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0195179455

http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Stu...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0691015953

More automatic weapons, more mechanization, more aerial weapons. Basically the enhancement of the offensive doctrine with modern weapons, communications, and fire-and-maneuver techniques was all being developed when WW1 hit. So by 1920 just about everyone is going to have some form of what is known today as maneuver warfare with motorized divisions being the means of implementations, backed up by armored cars and half tracks sporting auto-cannons.

 

[AdA]

Expect the development of light machine guns, semiauto rifles, perhaps submachine guns, better armored cars and the intro of APCs, SP artillery and towed artillery, the enhancement of motorized/mechanized divisions, and of course the development of aerial recon/bombing/fighters, though not to the degree of OTL. Tactics were being developed from the experiences of the Russo-Japanese war, which did influence fire-and-maneuver in all armies leading up to WW1, though it was also a matter of retiring the 'traditionalists' before the full program of reforms could be implemented, which was well on its way in 1914. I recommend reading the following to get an idea of what was in the offing:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Kaisers-A...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0195179455

http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Stu...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0691015953

More automatic weapons, more mechanization, more aerial weapons. Basically the enhancement of the offensive doctrine with modern weapons, communications, and fire-and-maneuver techniques was all being developed when WW1 hit. So by 1920 just about everyone is going to have some form of what is known today as maneuver warfare with motorized divisions being the means of implementations, backed up by armored cars and half tracks sporting auto-cannons.

1920 is too fast for peace time development. Everybody had just spent a lot of money in the previous decade and a a half renovating the Artillery and small arms entirely, and without the war it would probably take up to 1930 for that kind of progress.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Whoa! i was just looking at the six-seven years after 1914. Tho everything mentioned here could very well appear on the drawing board, on in proposals.

Light automatic weapons: Mondragons gas operated infantry rifle had been in limited production at the SiG factory in Switzerland. Only 1,500 built before the money ran out. Were there any others in production by 1914? What about full auto rifles/light MG on the drawing boards on in prototype?

Aircraft: Those had been used for dropping bombs in Lybia in 1912. Major Lewis had tested his aircooled aircraft MG in 1912. the US Army was not buying yet, but did adopt Captain Pattons new pattern for a cavalry sword. Zepplins were participating in fleet exercises as reconissance, and experiments with bomb dropping were carried out with those pre 1914. What else was in the conceptual stage by 1914?

Armored cars were used by the Belgians in 1914 as protected MG carriers for their cavalry. There were a lot of ideas proposed for armored vehicles pre 1914, but I have no idea waht was actually being built as prototypes or tested.

Rapid fire artillery and time fuzed ammunition had reached a development plateau well before 1914. Some refinements were in the works, but I cant see any great leaps in hardware. The tactics used in the Balkan Wars 1912-14 had not yet been asorbed by the artillery leaders. Much of the artillery experience of 1914/15 was anticipated on the hills and plains of Bulgaria, Thrace, and the approaches to Erdine or Adrianople. Maybe those lessons would be accepted by the other armies of Europe, maybe not.

The Balkan wars had a great deal more to teach. they validated the recognition the Russians and British had of the value of firepower and the problems of shock tactics vs firepower. the Germans and more so the French had been strongly committed to the idea of offence and the 'attack brusque' or the shock & awe of the rapid and massed infantry attack. I am unclear on if they would have seen the error in their ways from the examples of the Balkan wars. The Brits and Russians had learned the hard way since 1900 that headlong charges against massed rifle fire, let alone MG fires or artillery shrapnel, dont work. The need for deep and extended trenches for the defense had been driven home as well. In 1914 the Germans were still scratching shallow trenches hardly a meter deep, the French were trained to make 'rifle pits' to lie in should a attack not be ordered. French MG were to be deployed well forward and accompany the infantry closely, the same as the Germans who saw the MG of pre 1914 as a sort of replacement of the old regimental light guns as it were.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

1920 is too fast for peace time development. Everybody had just spent a lot of money in the previous decade and a a half renovating the Artillery and small arms entirely, and without the war it would probably take up to 1930 for that kind of progress.

For light machine guns and the start of motorization, I think its possible. Early bombers and fighters are certainly possible, as is the start of SP artillery and armored (car) divisions. I'm not saying the process would be complete by any stretch, but it would have started by 1920.

Light automatic weapons: Mondragons gas operated infantry rifle had been in limited production at the SiG factory in Switzerland. Only 1,500 built before the money ran out. Were there any others in production by 1914? What about full auto rifles/light MG on the drawing boards on in prototype?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat
IIRC the Germans were working on a light machine gun since 1912.
There was of course the Madsen Auto-rifle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_machine_gun
The Germans used them in 'Fusilier' companies in WW1 as light machine guns, but abandoned them due to high manufacture costs and their lack of ability for sustained fire, as they weren't true light machine guns, rather auto-rifles, so overheated during sustained fire, which it wasn't designed for, but the Germans were using them as.

So I imagine the Germans would end up fielding something like the MG08/15 by 1920, while the Lewis Gun, which IIRC was available in 1914, would end up with some European army. Not sure if the Chauchat would appear, as it was an expedient design IIRC.

The Balkan wars had a great deal more to teach. they validated the recognition the Russians and British had of the value of firepower and the problems of shock tactics vs firepower. the Germans and more so the French had been strongly committed to the idea of offence and the 'attack brusque' or the shock & awe of the rapid and massed infantry attack. I am unclear on if they would have seen the error in their ways from the examples of the Balkan wars. The Brits and Russians had learned the hard way since 1900 that headlong charges against massed rifle fire, let alone MG fires or artillery shrapnel, dont work. The need for deep and extended trenches for the defense had been driven home as well. In 1914 the Germans were still scratching shallow trenches hardly a meter deep, the French were trained to make 'rifle pits' to lie in should a attack not be ordered. French MG were to be deployed well forward and accompany the infantry closely, the same as the Germans who saw the MG of pre 1914 as a sort of replacement of the old regimental light guns as it were.

The Germans were in the process of abandoning the massed assault tactics in 1914, but there were still some 'traditionalists' clinging to it in 1914, but by and large the German infantry focused more on fire and maneuver tactics than bayonet charges. I know the Prussian Guards did still rely on massed bayonet charges, but looking at the heavily lopsided casualties the French took in August-September 1914, the Germans were not really using the same types of tactics that failed the French. In fact, reading US army reports from the 1930s about the French failures in the Ardennes showed that the Germans were using fire and maneuver against the French massed bayonet charges, which resulted in the wipe out of the French colonial corps at Rossignol.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=109864

http://computasaur.tripod.com/ww1/id17.html

 

[historyfool]

Light automatic weapons: Mondragons gas operated infantry rifle had been in limited production at the SiG factory in Switzerland. Only 1,500 built before the money ran out. Were there any others in production by 1914? What about full auto rifles/light MG on the drawing boards on in prototype?

The Madsen was probably the first mass-produced LMG from 1903 onward. It was comparatively expensive and difficult to produce, but already the Russians bought 1250 before the Russo-Japanese war. By 1914 the Germans and a number of other nations used it. In use into the 21st century in Brazil at least, though by now should be retired.
The Hotchkiss M1909 was not that successful, but was adopted by a number of nations before the war.
The Lewis gun started to enter production in Belgium in 1913, but that was interrupted by the war. Produced instead in GB.

Those are just the LMGs I know which entered serial production before the war. Experiments for assault rifles happened but were in general not very successful. Except the Mondragon I thing only the Fedorov and the Cei-Rigotti were actually tested by armies, but a number of people worked on them.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... In fact, reading US army reports from the 1930s about the French failures in the Ardennes showed that the Germans were using fire and maneuver against the French massed bayonet charges, which resulted in the wipe out of the French colonial corps at Rossignol.

The US field Artillery Journal in the volumes of the 1920s has several articles concerning French artillery in the border battles. One has a detailed description of a "regiment" of artillery caught moving on a forward slope. Emplaced German artillery, probablly 77mm but the quantity I cant remember, massacred the French batteries. The author has it the French division lost its entire artillery group in this event leaving it unable to deal with the German corps attacking southwards on its front.

 

[Landshark]

The French intended to issue a semi-automatic rifle as standard in 1914, however the prospect of war with Germany meant the had to stick with the Lebel.

Meunier Rifle

 

[BlondieBC]

For light machine guns and the start of motorization, I think its possible. Early bombers and fighters are certainly possible, as is the start of SP artillery and armored (car) divisions. I'm not saying the process would be complete by any stretch, but it would have started by 1920.

Yes, if you mean trucks to move infantry. There were proposals in the budgets for bigger trucking units in the military. Likely by 1920, we are still looking at trucking battalions attached to divisions to increase the speed the units gets to the battle area. And to supply units past rail heads. Along with some type of armored cars in smaller numbers for various roles.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yes, if you mean trucks to move infantry. There were proposals in the budgets for bigger trucking units in the military. Likely by 1920, we are still looking at trucking battalions attached to divisions to increase the speed the units gets to the battle area. And to supply units past rail heads. Along with some type of armored cars in smaller numbers for various roles.

IIRC the BEF of August 1914 had its transportation service motorized vs horse draught. Anyone have details for this?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thinking back through al the biographies of the US army officers active pre 1917 I am fairly confident there would have not been much change here. Mr Brownings weapons were in development & probably be adopted anyway. The French artillery park would not have been adopted, the guns would have remained the home grown models. Which reminds me of a interesting point. The US Army dis not rush into the modern rapid fire technology as swiftly as the Europeans. ..and they were more prone to act on disatisfaction with the results. Perhaps there would have been much more improvement of detail by 1920? Hypothetical M1917 or 1918 models looking better than the common models of the US or other armies.

 

[phx1138]

IMO, you don't get Thompsons, BARs, or tanks.

Nor do you get depth charges, hydrophones, sonar, or the return of convoys. Nor dipping sonar, ahead-throwing weapons, and wolfpacks, which were mooted but not introduced.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

IMO, you don't get Thompsons, BARs....

Both Thompson and Browning had been working on the concepts that became those weapons before 1915. Without the battles of the war those weapons would develop in a different direction to a greater or lesser degree.

Tanks as we know them are unlikely, but tracked draught was already in use & use as a firepower carrier is a logical step.

One critical question that occurs to me; would folks start experimenting with ships carrying aircraft before 1920? How far towards the aircraft carrier will things move in these six years.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

How far towards the aircraft carrier will things move in these six years.

My guess is not very. We'd have ship based seaplanes, but the concept of a dedicated for launching land based aircraft is really going to have to wait. Between all the folks who will enjoy pointing out how unproven aircraft are, the high cost and what I suspect will be a trend toward larger aircraft at an earlier date though deck carriers just aren't going to have much of a chance.

On that last point, given the way things went during the war I suspect that fighter development is going to be retarded quite a bit. The focus will probably remain largely on reconnaissance operationally with experiments focusing more on bombing and what we'd call close air support than air superiority. Between those military trends and development on the commercial side I suspect the focus of aviation development is going to be range and payload. By the twenties I'd think we'd have some very nice two seat reconnaissance/light bombing platforms and most larger forces will have a decent number of twin engine multi crew aircraft kicking around, but that single seaters, or a serious conception of air to air combat is going to fairly limited. With aviation still a sideshow in the minds of most officers the prospect of specializing in attacking the enemy's aviation is going to look an awful lot like a sideshow to a sideshow, and a dangerous, expensive and controversial one at that.

 

[Captain Jack]

IMO, you don't get Thompsons, BARs, or tanks.

Nor do you get depth charges, hydrophones, sonar, or the return of convoys. Nor dipping sonar, ahead-throwing weapons, and wolfpacks, which were mooted but not introduced.

I disagree that these wouldn't develop. Develop more slowly certainly but they would still occur. Both depth charges and sonar were in development before WW1 and once you have depth charges it isn't much of a leap to develop a forward throwing ASW weapon.

With regards to aircraft carriers I don't think they will be retarded as much as some people think. They will go hand in hand with the development of aircraft and will appear as soon as aircraft reach the point where they can carry a useful payload.

 

[Just Leo]

IIRC, before the war started, the Great Powers were desperately trying to one-up each other in aircraft designs.

The Great Powers per se were not responsible for aircraft one-upmanship. Individual designers, engineers and enthusiastic entrepreneurs took the challenge to build faster, bigger, longer ranging aircraft before the war. Taking off from and landing back on the decks of ships, flying across the Channel and the Alps, flying at 120 mph, all predated the war. The only foreseen military use for the airplane was reconnaissance, until somebody realized that he could throw a small bomb over the side. Aircraft as weapons of war would likely have taken a far different course without the crucible of combat. A single French individual with a Morane monoplane and a machine gun was the single pivotal point that led the Germans, of all people, to contract a Dutchman to mass-produce and formally employ the fighter aircraft.