Military Development in the 20th Century Without the World Wars

Amerigo Vespucci said:
Infantry weapons, sure. Tanks? Strategic bombers? Nuclear Weapons? No way.

Here's how I envision combat developing. Let's posit a conflict between Belgian Congo and German Cameroon in the early 1960s.

The terrain doesn't favor the introduction of the calvalrian armored car forces of either nation, so most of the fighting will be on the infantry level. Both German and Belgian troopers will probably carry submachineguns or the first-generation automatic rifles, which were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Airplanes, interestingly enough, would probably be used only in conjunction with artillery firebases, as spotters. They would be similar to OTL's OV-10s, except slightly less-advanced. Poison gas is a possibility, based on the Italian experience in Ethiopia. Without the experience of WWI, it's probably going to be used quite often in colonial conflicts.

Infantry combat will probably consist of poorly-trained local levies slugging it out with regular army support, usually in the form of artillery and gas. Imagine a Vietnam-style conflict without air power, fought soely by the ARVN (with American artillery) and the NVA. That's the sort of thing you could expect in colonial wars.

In places where the terrain allows, you might see the Guards or Royal Armoured Car forces coming out to play.

If we have a POD that eliminates the Dreadnaught race, you'll knock out a lot of military R&D, period. That would virtually eliminate prestige races for space and colonies, and create a more peaceful world.

If you have a POD where the naval arms races happen, it's eminently possible that competitions for prestige could result where nations compete for technological gains and multiple space races concurrently.

One aspect of that that might be interesting would be the development of an aerial arms race in the 1920s and 1930s. You could see larger and larger aircraft, a la the Dreadnaught/Battleship progression. That could result in increased aerial development, leading into a space race if conflict doesn't break out. Eventually, however, one side or the other is going to run out of money. That was the impetus behind the Washington Naval Treaty following WWI -- no one wanted to return to that costly Dreadnaught race.

Without a WWI, that Dreadnaught race may extend to bigger naval vessels, including aircraft carriers, or perhaps an air race by the 1930s. That's ignoring the financial situations of both Britain and Germany, however. France, Russia, and even the United States to some extent may be left behind in such a race.


I'm not sure the US would be left behind even back in 1900-1914 the British were scared that the US would get in a naval build race with them .
 
Ward said:
I'm not sure the US would be left behind even back in 1900-1914 the British were scared that the US would get in a naval build race with them .

The US had the financial resources to compete, far more so than Germany. However the question for most of this period was did it have the desire. Even in 1921 it had already virtually decided the 1916 programme wouldn't be completed even if there was no naval treaty. [Although this might well have changed if Japan had continued their programme].

Without WWI there would probably have been an Anglo-US naval race sooner or later but it could have been very long and costly.

Steve
 
Ward said:
I'm not sure the US would be left behind even back in 1900-1914 the British were scared that the US would get in a naval build race with them .
The US and the UK weren't rivals though in the sense of the US and the USSR though. They shared the same culture, same heritage, same ideologies, etc. I'm not sure either one of them ranked each other as their main threat. This would probably decrease the probability of an arms race between the two.

The main threat the UK faced was from Europe, the main threat the US faced was in the Pacific; either a Japanese or Russian threat. I was under the impression that the UK and US relationship was more along the lines of 'You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone'.
 
Tony Williams said:
Of course they would.

Tanks would not have happened so quickly, because their introduction was a response to a specific problem encountered in WW1 (barbed wire and trench warfare). But automotive developments would have happened for straightforward commercial reasons, so trucks and cars would have developed just the same. And the desirability of getting troops close to the battlefront while protecting them would certainly have led to someone cladding a truck in armour (after all, Leonardo da Vinci designed an armoured car in the 15th century - he just didn't have an engine to power it). It would then have been found that performance across country wasn't much good, but the caterpillar track was invented before WW1 - so you'd get armoured personnel carriers, then armoured vehicles with guns to knock out the APCs - only they wouldn't be called tanks. You'd then get the military theorists like Fuller et al pointing out the advantages of a mechanized force, and you're away. Development would, of course, be much slower than in OTL (and the horse cavalry would last longer) but it would still happen.

Strategic bombers would happen also. Passenger aircraft would develop as before, for the same reasons as in OTL. The possibility of strategic bombing from the air was well understood before WW1 (H G Well's novel 'The War in the Air' came out in 1908) so it wouldn't have taken a genius to see the potential of big, bomb-carrying versions of the passenger planes. Again, development would have been slower, but it would have happened.

Even more so the atomic bomb. The physics needed to design it was going on in research institutes anyway, and the possibility of a violent nuclear reaction was understood before the start of WW2 and being discussed between atomic scientists. If the world was divided into power blocs which weren't actually at war (as in 1945-90) then the fear that someone else might develop the A-bomb first would have pushed everyone to try and make one as soon as they could, so I doubt if this would even have been much delayed over OTL.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I agree. If there is continued international tension, without the actual costs of the two world wars, you could well see weapons develop more rapidly. You still have the incentive but not the main costs of a bloodbath. Think how rapidly naval weapons and ship designs changed in the race before WWI. The only thing that would delay things a bit is because you lack the acid test of actual combat its more difficult to tell what ideas actually work so some wastage and uncertainty. But nit as much as the cost of an actual long and bloody war.

Steve
 
Too open a question to answer really- so there isn't world wars. What is there though? How big are the wars that remain?

For technology advancing slower...Not nessesarily. If we have a lot of smaller scale wars rather then the world wars then I could well see technology advancing much faster as each side has more resources not damaged by war to pump into military research.

Anyway, to asnwer a bit:

What would the armies, navies and air forces of 2006 look like if there had not been two world wars?

How would the development of self loading and automatic weapons go?
No reason for it not to go. Would probally be more interest in it in a peaceful world actually , would allow for you to have less soldiers do the same job (and so cost less)

Would camoflage uniforms and kevlar helmets be introduced?
As mentioned dark colours were already been worn. The thing that stopped armies from wearing modern camoflague was dye and cloth making technology- civilian stuff that may well advance better without a WW.
What sort of armoured vehicles would end up being used?
Maybe they would well end up being lighter tending far more towards fast APCs. But then there are little wars to take into account.
Would independent air forces come into existence?
Hopefully not.
Would jet fighters appear later or sooner?
Maybe a bit later but not by that much.
Would the missile replace the gun as the primary weapon of warships before or after they did in OTL?
Probally a lot after with no WW2. The nazis invested heavily in rocketry as it let them sneakily get around the versailles restrictions. Others were still looking into them but not to the extent of the Germans.
Would the Atomic Bomb be created?
Yes. Even if at first it is a purely theoretical physics project. It would be quite a unanswered gap in known science which couldn't go un-investigated for long.
 
Last edited:
Jets would have been introduced earlier, they were invented in Britain in peace time, but thanks to theeconomic hangover of WW I the money to develop them was missing. In a much much richer world (France and Germnay lost half their national assets in WW I), there will imply be more money and more people, hence more advanced tech of all kinds, inclduing military.
 
Alratan said:
Jets would have been introduced earlier, they were invented in Britain in peace time, but thanks to theeconomic hangover of WW I the money to develop them was missing. In a much much richer world (France and Germnay lost half their national assets in WW I), there will imply be more money and more people, hence more advanced tech of all kinds, inclduing military.
Yup but WW1 did accelerate aircraft development quite somewhat so though there would be more money in the 20s/30s it would be working on lesser level planes playing catch up to OTL.
 
Tony Williams said:
Tanks would not have happened so quickly, because their introduction was a response to a specific problem encountered in WW1 (barbed wire and trench warfare). But automotive developments would have happened for straightforward commercial reasons, so trucks and cars would have developed just the same. And the desirability of getting troops close to the battlefront while protecting them would certainly have led to someone cladding a truck in armour (after all, Leonardo da Vinci designed an armoured car in the 15th century - he just didn't have an engine to power it). It would then have been found that performance across country wasn't much good, but the caterpillar track was invented before WW1 - so you'd get armoured personnel carriers, then armoured vehicles with guns to knock out the APCs - only they wouldn't be called tanks. You'd then get the military theorists like Fuller et al pointing out the advantages of a mechanized force, and you're away. Development would, of course, be much slower than in OTL (and the horse cavalry would last longer) but it would still happen.
I would quibble with your assessment of the evolution of the tank. While I agree that there were plenty of factors in the early 20th century that made the invention of a self-propelled armored gun inevitable, the types of wars it would be fighting would drastically change the way the design evolves, and how it is deployed.

Since we are assuming colonial proxy wars occur instead of full-out European conflicts, we are going to be dealing with a different scale of deployment. Since WWI and WWII both occurred in the heartland of Europe, it was easy for a combatant to build thousands of tanks and send them to the front a few hundred miles away by railroad. In this case, all transport will have to be made through thousands of miles of poorly-controlled rail lines through unpleasant terrain, or by sea, a dicey prospect for any nation other that Britain, the US, or Japan. Furthermore, the colonies in which the wars will be fought, owing to sensible imperial policy, will not have the type of heavy industry necessary to build masses of tanks, nor the infrastructure required to build that industry rapidly. As a result, engagements with only a few tanks will be the norm, so we mould probably see the proliferation of the infantry-killing machines of the 1920s rather than the weapons we’re familiar with today. Tanks might merely be used as support for infantry, rather than a weapon in their own right.

(BTW, the idea of transport making mass deployment of tanks difficult is my basic ratonale for why tanks never appeared during the Long War in The Years of Rice and Salt.)
 
Tony Williams said:
Tanks would not have happened so quickly, because their introduction was a response to a specific problem encountered in WW1 (barbed wire and trench warfare). But automotive developments would have happened for straightforward commercial reasons, so trucks and cars would have developed just the same. And the desirability of getting troops close to the battlefront while protecting them would certainly have led to someone cladding a truck in armour (after all, Leonardo da Vinci designed an armoured car in the 15th century - he just didn't have an engine to power it). It would then have been found that performance across country wasn't much good, but the caterpillar track was invented before WW1 - so you'd get armoured personnel carriers, then armoured vehicles with guns to knock out the APCs - only they wouldn't be called tanks. You'd then get the military theorists like Fuller et al pointing out the advantages of a mechanized force, and you're away. Development would, of course, be much slower than in OTL (and the horse cavalry would last longer) but it would still happen.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

I have seen a reference to a patent in Austria-Hungary to a vehicle very similar to a 1940s tank taken out in 1912-1914. The presence of a turret mount was clearly evident, tho the entry and picture was not detailed enough to determine if the turret could rotate or was fixed. Don't remember the specifics on the treads.
 
What would the armies, navies and air forces of 2006 look like if there had not been two world wars?

Would each country still use their own unique cartidges like they did in 1906?
I agree with the concept of alliance-wide cartridges and ordnance.

How would the development of self loading and automatic weapons go?
I'm guessing roughly the same as in OTL but more slowly.

Would camoflage uniforms and kevlar helmets be introduced?
Yes to the former (they were already being phased in by 1914); possibly the latter would be cutting edge technology today.

What sort of armoured vehicles would end up being used?
I'd guess armor would be roughly an updated version of end-of-WW II/Korea technology.

Would independent air forces come into existence?
Eventually, yes; probably in the 1950s.

Would jet fighters appear later or sooner?
Later: no real impetus save for general technological development. Look for them in the late 1950s, perhaps.

Would the missile replace the gun as the primary weapon of warships before or after they did in OTL?
After: much missile technology came about as a function of the V-2 and the stillborn V-3.

Would the Atomic Bomb be created?
Yes: the basic research was pretty much all there by the mid-to-late 1930s. The Manhattan Project brought it to fruition. But without a military impetus, it would probably be completed in numerous university labs, with some underwriting by corporations. I suspect it might have become reality about 20 years later.
 
Ivan Druzhkov said:
I would quibble with your assessment of the evolution of the tank. While I agree that there were plenty of factors in the early 20th century that made the invention of a self-propelled armored gun inevitable, the types of wars it would be fighting would drastically change the way the design evolves, and how it is deployed.
I don't disagree with that. I was merely responding to a suggestion that tanks would not have been developed at all.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
David S Poepoe said:
I have seen a reference to a patent in Austria-Hungary to a vehicle very similar to a 1940s tank taken out in 1912-1914. The presence of a turret mount was clearly evident, tho the entry and picture was not detailed enough to determine if the turret could rotate or was fixed. Don't remember the specifics on the treads.

Ah yes - the Günther Burstyn Motorgeschütz (selfpropelled artillery piece). Build in 1913 in Austria it had a revolving turret and was armoured to withstand small arms fire and shrapnel. It was a tracked vehicle and able to cross trenches, oh yes a visionary constructer, and able to climb obstacles.
Burstyn was a lt.colonel of the Austrian army. When demonstrating the vehicle at the spring review of troops it made so much noise that the imperial horses were frightened and emperor Franz Josef declared that such a machine had no place in his army.
And here it is:
 

Attachments

  • GB motorgeschütz.pdf
    446.8 KB · Views: 549
The driving force in technological development would probably be the civilian marketplace (rather than military in otl)
As noted elsewhere long range commercial passenger a/c would be easy conversions to bombers. High speed air transport and racing would produce high performance designs that could have military applications.
Communications would benefit from the civilian marketplace as well. With more travel, radio equipment would improve. More air travel would require safety and the development of air traffic control radar would be undertaken.
Mechanization of the farm & construction industry would see tracked & wheeled vehicle development that could spin off into military usage.
The goal of speed in air transportation might fuel the development of jet engines - for use in commercial aircraft.

Where the big difference would come - without war, none of the new/emerging technologies would be 'validated' in combat.

In the naval arena, the changes might be less visible. Capital ships might still be the 'queens' of the battlefleet. Carriers might come into service, but unless demonstrations/exercises showed their superiority they would probably remain in the second line, limited to recon and some attack roles.

Submarines are another iffy subject. Once again without a major conflict to demonstrate their potential they might continue to improve in design, but the tactics for employment might lag.
 
Hmmm. Very interesting questions.

Tanks, I have to disagree. They derive from a very specific set of circumstances: trench warfare & torn up ground due to hvy arty. Remove those, the need for tanks disappears til much later. Armored cars, especially in Europe (with its good road net), yes. Also, presuming mostly colonial/brushfire wars, lighter, less complicated/easier to maintain, & faster vehicles are more probable, IMO.

In the same vein, heavy infantry is probably less likely, in favor of airborne (zep-borne?) &/or heliborne. SMGs probably appear early (less need for aimed LR fire against tribesmen, more need for hi-volume fire), then assault rifles (to avoid the need to carry 2 weaps & supply 2 types ammo). Expect a .45/.455 auto pistol (something like the ARM or C/96) to become common early, as the .38 proves inadequate. I'd also expect better vests, helmets, & boots (metal inserts & such), as indigs use more booby traps: better protection against punji & blast. Also, more combat experience probably drives better inf comm, so something not unlike "Aliens" or "24", with pencams, earwigs, & throat mikes, could appear as early as 1965. Something like a "moonsuit" might be SOP, in an environment where inf could face CW/BW at almost any moment, & where even the likes of RVN or Iraq could produce & use it...& would.

I'd see much earlier developments of either transport & attack helicopters or armed transport zeps; maybe transport zeps with escort helos like Snakes. Possibly under top cover from Harriers with BVRs?

Subs, I picture big ones, like Narwhal (360' loa, 2700 tons) crossed with the Type 21s, with AIP or fuel cell, maybe equipped with a type of SLCM or Harpoon. That'd help drive CVs, which might look more like LPHs than Nimitz. Especially if there's need for a lot of rapid reaction against brushwars: they'd have to be smaller, cheaper, & more numerous.

Nukes I'd rule out. They're interesting as a lab experiment, but CW & BW are much cheaper & easier, & much more likely to be used by all powers. That, of course, affects ship designs, so expect all ships to have much better (not necessarily thicker) armor: spaced Chobham-type coupled with reactive/explosive would be SOP before 1970, IMO, given large, powerful shaped-charge antiship weaps.
 
Top