Military technology, 1920's with no Great War

Suppose that Europe had stumbled along without starting the Great War in 1914. Never mind just how war is averted, but it is--although the arms race keeps going, somehow, someone steps on every lit fuse before it reaches the powder keg, even as people light others. What would the military technology look like by the early 1920's?
 

The Vulture

Banned
Money keeps getting poured into cavalry rather than tanks, although perhaps it becomes motorized. Bicycle infantry may be the vogue for a while.
 

Larrikin

Banned
Gas

Poison Gas would never have been developed either.

Why not? I am curious as to your reasoning. Given another ten years of developing tensions I think it would not only have been developed, but more thoroughly developed than it was when first deployed.
 
Gas would still become 'militerized' by then, though the use of it in warfare would still largely be theoretically based, with perhaps one of the imperial powers using it on a rebellious native population at some stage.

Aircraft would be less developed, though still progressing at a fair pace.
 
Zepplins and seaplane tenders would still feature in military thought.
jaby2.gif
 
Aviation would be a lot less advanced then in OTL.

Probably in regard to an OTL 1920'ies analogy but I'd still expect some development in aircraft design leading to perhaps something like 1918 single or two seaters tech level but without syncronized machineguns and little in the way of bombing techniques. Generally an absence of techniques gained during WWI but the aircraft looking kind of like.
And yes most probably big seaplanes as large airfields isn't developed as OTL.
 
Aeroplanes were developing fast and they're not going to stop developing, there will just be a different focus. For example one major pre-war trend was in distance and endurance, so you could have very long-range aircraft develop. Another would be the role of scout and observer aircraft, with aerodynamics and performance, agility etc.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The bayonet and the cult of the offensive would probably still be very popular. Cavalry would definitely EVENTUALLY die out, becoming more of an honor guard type.

No tanks, no advanced aircraft or advanced machine guns. No superior infantry tactics, just an overwhelming mass of bodies. Hand-grenades still very basic.

Your still going to have a war in the future and when it happens its probably going to be a lot more bloody.
 
Something like tanks would definetly exist, the British and French were developing armoured cars/tractors for colonial use - the same with aircraft and poison gas.

Radios will probably be advanced with more money around for consumer lead development.
 
It is necessary to distinguish motorized warfare from armored warfare. The former is a very logical development. The real threat to the cavalrymen will come from a fast moving truck not some foolish slow moving tracked monstrosity that breaks down constantly. There will be some incremental development towards AFV's with armored cars being improved and once engines reach a certain level there would be some experimentation with half tracks for greater off road mobility.

As for poison gas I would see some prominent military figures trumpeting the use of nonlethal gases as a more humane way to wage war. "If police departments can use them why can't we?" they will moan. Some nations might go the extra step and explore lethal gases in secret but not put into production.

The submachinegun could be delayed as much as 8-10 years. There would be incremental experimentation with light machineguns and semiautomatic rifles.

Likewise artillery would develop incrementally. I would see a vigorous debate in military circles about the value of fortresses.
 

Deleted member 1487

The bayonet and the cult of the offensive would probably still be very popular. Cavalry would definitely EVENTUALLY die out, becoming more of an honor guard type.

No tanks, no advanced aircraft or advanced machine guns. No superior infantry tactics, just an overwhelming mass of bodies. Hand-grenades still very basic.

Your still going to have a war in the future and when it happens its probably going to be a lot more bloody.


Offensive yes, bayonet no. There was a transition in military circles at the time to great emphasis on firepower. Shock action was becoming obsolete and the traditionalists were aging and falling out of power. As firepower becomes more developed and light machine guns and auto rifles are created, the bayonet loses lots of its luster and usage. Fire and maneuver tactics existed prewar, but were not uniform. Given until the 1920's there will be an increasing tendency toward firepower over shock. Remember even the semi-auto rifle was being developed prewar by every major power. Maybe with new leadership this weapon is given greater emphasis.

The POD is going to be somewhat important here, as if the solution is just that Franz Ferdinand does not get assassinated, there will be another Balkan conflict, as the AH empire is going to eventually come down to civil war when he rises to power. Even if he doesn't, on a longer enough TL the AH empire is likely to enter into an internal conflict: if not in 1917 then certainly in 1927. This will mean that a modern conflict of larger proportion will happen in Europe for the major powers to witness. Perhaps it will point the way to the future conduct of warfare. Or not. But I think more conflicts on Europe periphery are coming, which can further influence the debate.

The trend was toward motorization and military aircraft development. We might end up seeing a less refined version of "Blitzkrieg" with motorized units becoming the new arm of maneuver and enhanced aircraft backing them up. The cult of the offensive is still going on of course, which means pushing hard. It was not necessarily an incorrect doctrine, rather, it was somewhat out of place without radio and motor/mechanization. Without the means of decisive maneuver it is really rather difficult to effectively fight an offensive campaign.

Edit: With more advanced radio types (this is coming as there is both a civilian and military demand for it), motorization, lighter machine guns, and increased aircraft range, size, and firepower warfare would certainly be more like the 1930's but without the practical experience of making it work properly. Infantry would still be the queen of the battlefield and there would be far fewer and more experimental AFV's than historical, but there would be many more people alive. People that survive and go on to enter into the sciences and other fields might drive technology more than we are able to imagine. Though many of the developments are likely to be in pure science than military science, there is likely to be enough that changes the nature of war.

Much of the adoption of new technologies hinges on military commanders willingness to look forward. Many militaries were trending this way, including the French, German, and Austro-Hungarian, though all remained mired in outdated methods and technologies. Some, like the French and AH were hamstrung by budget constraints, though this was easing for both. By the 1920's there are likely to be retirements in all major parties which is likely to open up the field. However, there is also the issue of increasing industrialization. This will matter most for Central and Eastern European powers, who were just starting to make up the gap between the West and East. This will have a huge effect on planning for war, as each major power is able to better equip their forces and supply them beyond what was possible in 1914. It is also likely then that the major powers are going to start planning for longer wars and to circumvent blockades. Germany was already working with that in 1914 before the war, but the studies were only in their infancy. By the 1920's there might very well be better planning for this eventuality and stockpiles of crucial resources in case of war and blockade. Perhaps the Central Powers are going to be better able to resist, though with increased capabilities for Russia, which has had time to economically develop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Civilian radio will be ahead of where it was, as IIRC a roll-out of civilian stations was stopped by the war... Details escape my Vista-befuddled mind!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The most important is probably the lack of development in tanks. Money will still be spend on cavalry so it will probably survive for a while longer than OTL. Nevertheless some research will be done into "motorizing" cavalry so armored cars and motorcycles will eventually develop. But with no war it will be at a theoretical stage unless there is some experimentation in some colonial problems.
I think gas would develop. It would be used (effectively) in quelling down colonial uprisings. The taboo against its usage might likely never develop.

The commercial possibilities of radio and aviation will emerge so private research into those two will occur. Maybe not as fast as in OTL but it will be behind only by a year or two. And he military will easily notice their potential. So not much of a difference there. But carriers will likely not happen until there is a war so a carrier is needed.
With no war and only commercial flight there is the possibility that airships will last longer than in OTL as a popular form of transport.

I think it might be much more interesting to see how it would affect civilian technology than military. Once a war breaks out the military development would readjust itself. Consumer technology however could go in many directions.
 
Top