Military technology, 1920's with no Great War

Deleted member 1487

Just out of curiosity, was that issued in any appreciable numbers?

It was used by both sides in the Great War, mainly to equip mobile units and aircraft. The Germans even formed two Auto Rifle battalions, but the amount of materials that were required to make the weapon were too much to justify during the blockade and it was mothballed. The allies bought the more reliable Lewis gun during the war, so replaced it during 1915. Russia had the largest stockpile, many of which were captured by the Germans and pressed into use. Several tens of thousand were used in total, which signified the need for the weapon. IIRC some cavalry units in the East used it until the end of the war.
 
It was also used in the Mexican Revolution before WWI. The Osprey book on the Mexican Revolution has a picture of presidential guards in Mexico City using some in street fighting at the beginning of the war.
 
Even without WW1 there was a huge cold war going on between the powers anyway that would continue to spur inovation... Germany was rapidly improving and moderinizing their artillery park, the russians where experimenting with armored tractors (so where the austrians)... you don't want to be caught unprepared when you enemy makes a weapons advance

look at all the inovation the us and the russians did even after vietnam because they were in a cold war... the technology might slow a little but most of the weapons systems where natural progressions that would occur anyway
 

Cook

Banned
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.

The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits;
The dropping of projectiles and explosives from Balloons,
The Diffusion of Asphyxiating Gases,
The Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body.

The major European Powers all signed the convention.

Only Britain putting a condition the use of hollow nosed bullets, insisting that it would not use them in a “White” war but would retain their use against “coloureds”. Presumably when you are faced with an opponent armed only with a spear it’s important to have the most deadly weapons available.

There was outrage in Holland and Germany and disapproval in the rest of Europe when it came to light that the British had shipped Dum Dum bullets to South Africa for use in the Boer War. “Civilised” people didn’t use such weapons against “Whites”.

The point it that Europeans considered themselves civilised. It was only after two years of appalling war that they changed their minds.
 

TheCrow__

Banned
alot of you said tanks would'nt be developed but who's to say just cause WWI does'nt break out does'nt mean some other war could'nt cause for the developement of the tank?
 
Someone said that the best way to start a war is to not be ready for it. The development of weapons of war would continue at some pace. The development of radio and aircraft for civil use would improve the breed, as happened. American aircraft structures and material technologies of the thirties spawned the "modern" combat aircraft of the forties. Civil aircraft, not combat aircraft tied to old dogma, led the way.

Another butterfly to be considered is the creative genius which lies in Flanders fields. A generation of potential thinkers were terminated along with everything they would have done.

Would someone have come up with the aircraft carrier, the submarine, and the tank? Sure. Would the tactical and strategic doctrines be formulated to utilize them correctly? Not so sure. Eventually. War is the best proving ground for such things, although expensive in human terms.
 
Two posts claim that the many dead of WWI have curtailed scientific progress (because potential inventors/scientists etc. were killed).

How realistic is that view compared to the fact that nothing spurs on development as an actual war? If you look at the modern age (from ~1850 onwards) there is (incremental) progress during peace but it speeds up enormously during a war as budgets increase hugely and restrictions of every kind are eliminated. Just look at what happened to aviation: planes were not much different between first flight and 1914 but progress was rapid between '14 and '18. And again between '39 and '45, outstripping anything seen between '18 and '39.


Personally, I don't think more (potential) scientists makes up for unlimited budgets and the will to get new technology (or just a better weapon) in action to gain an advantage over an enemy.
 

Larrikin

Banned
Dum Dums in the Boer War

There was outrage in Holland and Germany and disapproval in the rest of Europe when it came to light that the British had shipped Dum Dum bullets to South Africa for use in the Boer War. “Civilised” people didn’t use such weapons against “Whites”.

The problem with this was of course that it was the Boers that were using hollow points. The British forces used bullets that were fully compliant with the Convention, it just so happened that they had been made at DumDum Arsenal in India and shipped to South Africa because it was closer than England.
 
Two posts claim that the many dead of WWI have curtailed scientific progress (because potential inventors/scientists etc. were killed).

How realistic is that view compared to the fact that nothing spurs on development as an actual war? If you look at the modern age (from ~1850 onwards) there is (incremental) progress during peace but it speeds up enormously during a war as budgets increase hugely and restrictions of every kind are eliminated. Just look at what happened to aviation: planes were not much different between first flight and 1914 but progress was rapid between '14 and '18. And again between '39 and '45, outstripping anything seen between '18 and '39.


Personally, I don't think more (potential) scientists makes up for unlimited budgets and the will to get new technology (or just a better weapon) in action to gain an advantage over an enemy.


Tesla wasn't working during a war :)

Admittedly, he was always plagued with budgetary problems

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Deleted member 1487

Two posts claim that the many dead of WWI have curtailed scientific progress (because potential inventors/scientists etc. were killed).

How realistic is that view compared to the fact that nothing spurs on development as an actual war? If you look at the modern age (from ~1850 onwards) there is (incremental) progress during peace but it speeds up enormously during a war as budgets increase hugely and restrictions of every kind are eliminated. Just look at what happened to aviation: planes were not much different between first flight and 1914 but progress was rapid between '14 and '18. And again between '39 and '45, outstripping anything seen between '18 and '39.


Personally, I don't think more (potential) scientists makes up for unlimited budgets and the will to get new technology (or just a better weapon) in action to gain an advantage over an enemy.


It only helps in some regards to military technology and even that is limited. Really, wars limit scientific progress rather than spur it. Most times only refinements in existing technology are developed during wars. The airplane, tank, gas, and other technologies were developed prewar only to be harnessed for military purposes and improved upon for the war. Massive wars like WW1 and WW2 did irreparable damage to advancement by eliminating generations of scientists and thinkers.

For example, prior to WW2 Germany was the leader in nobel prizes for science, dominating just about every science for over a decade. Post war they have only received a few. If WW1 had not occurred, what would Germany's science field have looked like?
 
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.

After reading an article about how technological advancement took place so quickly during the Great War, I think that of the carrier it would still develop. The use of aircraft, either shore or shipbased, is an extension of the 'flotilla system' that Fisher advocated for during his first term as First Sea Lord. The scouting capability of aircraft was recognized as early as 1911. There were a variety different methods of launching aircraft from warships experimented with. Many systems fell by the wayside as aircraft became progressively heavier. So eventually a dedicated vessels will most likely be experimented with in order to transport scouting planes for the battleline.

Regarding the airship, its unfortunate that the infrastructure to build and support it is incredibly expensive.
 
It would be interesting to add into the mix - what would the geographic situation be? Could the Ottoman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire remaind intact? What would the political fallout be if they collapsed in "peace time"?
What about Russia? Would there still be a Tsar?

Part of the driving force in military development is response to a percieved threat. (Would some of the powers in place at the beginning of the 20th Century be capable of funding/maintaining military research?)

The geo-political map could have changed, resulting in new alliances and new 'threats"
 

Deleted member 1487

For one, Austria-Hungary would have modernized their artillery by 1920 and would be very well on their way by 1917 when Franz Ferdinand would have taken the throne and likely started a civil war. Much of the funding issues had been worked out in 1912, but the new systems were not settled on by the start of the war or were not rolled out in time. By 1916-7 the quality and quantity would be dramatically improved, especially in mountain guns.

If the nation were to collapse there is the possibility of starting a wider war as Serbia, Russia, and Romania would want pieces of it and Germany would want to fight to keep it together. A European war could start with Britain staying out and Austria-Hungary being picked apart while fighting a wider conflict. I doubt that it would happen, as Britain and France are unlikely to support Austria being invaded for blatant aggrandizement. Russia would also have a hard time supporting Serbia politically here, especially as an aggressor. Romania would have the easiest time, as a Habsburg ally they could justify aggression by claiming to help the Austrians against the Hungarians and demanding part of the Romanian minority as compensation for their efforts.
 
I agree with Just Leo,
Imagine the all 9milion jong men of the warriing parties died on the battle fields, there ideas, talents and skills, they wold spur development as well. And the expample of the period before the great war, how fast progres was.
WW1 might speed up for a very short period technical progress in a verry narrow field but would stall immidiatly, after peace since all parties were exhousted in all fields.

An other example of technology developed without war is TV, this invention was a pure private entreprise.

Concerning the ''cold war'' between the UK and Germany this was probably eased with diplomacy during the 20ties. Perhaps with the same reason as the OTL cold war, pure due to economic reasons. The threasuries of one side would announce that an other series of superduper battleships would be too much to handle financial.
Maybe in Germany there would be a cabinet in the 20ties whorecogniezed that the so desired colonies were more waste of money than a profitable asset, reducing one of the tensions between Germany and the UK and France.
 
Last edited:
War is an incredibly inefficient way to expand research. It might result in faster development overall, due to the lack of budgetary considerations, and hasten the change-over from traditional thought to merit, but in all other areas it acts as a retardant to progress.

During the interbellum, many American corporations adopted some level of scientific planning. The field of engineering was at an all time high, and only Germany's excellent universities and stringent work ethic let them keep the lead in theoretical science. As the second war started, the USA introduced scientific planning on a grand scale, which accounts for the quick progress during this time.

Germany did something similar after Hitler proclaimed a total war economy.
 
A few developments stillborn...

The Russians were working on some things that, had they not had a major war, might well have become significant. The Sikorsky Russky Vityaz FOUR ENGINE passenger plane in 1913-14 could carry 16 passengers. The design got used for a bomber, and then Russian aircraft fell behind after the Revolution. But four engined planes (and later, 2 and three engine airliners) were a possible commercial development even without the war.

The Federov Avtomat was also an interesting Russian invention--a true assault rifle built prewar. It had reliability issues--but in peacetime, they could have been worked on.
 
Top