More advanced radio in ww1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the level of radio technology was at the 1925 level in 1914?
How would the war have played out if semi-reliable communication could be achieved during the war? This means that radio communication was bulky, but still small enough to be man-portable and could be carried into the attack. The first thing I can think of would be far greater artillery/infantry coordination with corresponding effect in damage. Not only that, but commanders would have greater control of battle and advances would not need to be stopped to wait for runners.

But does it mean that war will end quicker or does the defense become even stronger if their link with the rear cannot be cut by heavy shelling?
 
A better radio probably would have saved more lives as the officers would have a clearer idea about what was really happening on the battlefield and could call off attacks or throw in support as needed. But the problem is would the generals do anything very differently?
During WW1 the majority of the leaders were old fashioned, obstinate, and incompetent. If they heard through the radio that the majority of soldiers attacking during the first hour of the Somme were dying, would they have ordered a halt before it became the bloody massacre we know and love, or simply order more troops in even more quickly than IOTL?
The big thing it would change would be artillery. A lot of friendly fire happened due to bad aiming, poor instructions and the fog of war. A better radio wouldn't end this, but it would probably save several thousand lives. Of course having better coordination between the infantry and artillery would mean that attacking would be even more deadly as attackers are hit by more accurate fire.
So unless the generals are more willing to change tactics than IOTL, better radios would probably only save a few thousand troops from friendly fire, but end up killing several more thousand through better defensive and offensive firing.
 
I think it could have made the war more fluid, with units in the field calling in fire missions directed by grids, mobile communications trucks advancing with the infantry and artillary to form a relay from the front all the way to central HQs, possibly airial recon, reporting from the over the targets/points of interest to the boys on the front lines or to the rear.

The implications for the war at sea are even more intriguing, if U-boats could be made into effective recon vessels, scouting for the High Seas Fleet, perhaps the Germans actually put to sea more frequently if they can find gaps in the British blockade or even catch a few smaller groups far from support and susceptable to a sort of ambush on the high seas.
 
The ‘Miracle of the Marne’happened due to the French stumbling across some written German orders.
Assuming radio did not fundamentally change the overall execution of the schlieffen plan the French would not have been able to continue once Paris fell, which would have been more than likely.
The resultant treaty would of made Germany stronger, France weaker and Russia and the UK would be the same. Germany and UK would not be bankrupt so the UK would still have the most powerful navy.
USA being the most powerful country would be delayed, No USSR, no Stalin, no Hitler
 

Deleted member 1487

The ‘Miracle of the Marne’happened due to the French stumbling across some written German orders.
Assuming radio did not fundamentally change the overall execution of the schlieffen plan the French would not have been able to continue once Paris fell, which would have been more than likely.
The resultant treaty would of made Germany stronger, France weaker and Russia and the UK would be the same. Germany and UK would not be bankrupt so the UK would still have the most powerful navy.
USA being the most powerful country would be delayed, No USSR, no Stalin, no Hitler


No, the exhaustion of the troops was the primary reason. They came too far too fast and could not destroy the French army or afford to lock an army down besieging Paris and its fortifications while the rest of the French are could then counter attack. Logistics were the reason for the loss, not a radio intercept. In fact, the intercept was important in the operational planning, but that was a detail in the fact that Germany had already lost its bid to encircle the French army. This fact was realized by September 4th when Moltke issued orders to the 1st and 2nd armies to essentially transform themselves into a flank guard for the rest of the army that would destroy the French center and right. This did not work out too well and the French were able to exploit overextended positions of the Germans. Radio won't change the basic fact that too much ground had to be covered and the French had the decisive manpower advantage at the decisive point.
 
John Keegan is convinced that better communications in 1914/18 would have prevented stalemate on the scale that we saw on the Western Front--delivering information between headquarters at the front & at the rear was amazingly slow, it was impossible to follow up on any gains made in 'the big pushs'.

But assuming France holds in '14, there is still the problem of defensive weapons tech being more advanced than offensive capabilities.

Maybe the war on the Western Front resembles the Italian campaign of WWII, with a long but ultimately successful rollback of the enemy's forces?

But which enemy?
 

Stephen

Banned
As Germany had much better grid coordinated howitsers at the begining of the war while Britain and other countries had mainly field artilery this could bring an early German victory in France.
 
Top