Technological Development Without WWI

[Henriksson]

The subject has come up in other threads, and there seems to be a notion among some that the absence of war would slow down technological development. I feel like we really need a thread for dedicated discussion on this topic. The details for how the Great War is averted is not of importance. Let us for the sake of argument say that without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, there are potential sparks for war similar to the Agadir crisis, but push never comes to shove.

Before going on, let me state the two obvious things (which also seem to be non-obvious):

1) The war killed off a generation of young men, many of which undoubtedly had skill and ideas.

2) The war wrecked Europe's economical network, and left it with an empty cupboard.

Discussion may commence.

 

[Ward]

1) aircraft development would be about 5 years behind what it was in 1919 .
2) Subs would still be a part of the Scouting Fleet .
3) air ship development might be further ahead .
4) land tactics would still be mass of soldiers in straight lines with Cav still used as scouts .

 

[Workable Goblin]

1) The war killed off a generation of young men, many of which undoubtedly had skill and ideas.

Indeedy. Quite a lot of clever young scientists, for instance, went off to die in the trenches. What no WWI is going to do is boost civilian technology development, of course, and probably somewhat retard or at least redirect military technology, but a lot of civilian development feeds back into military technology in the end. So, for instance, you might see enhanced development of car technology, with much less emphasis on armored vehicle development in the military than OTL (obviously)...but, of course, better car or truck engines can be used for tanks or armored cars, armored cars and tanks were already under development to a small extent at the beginning of the war, and so forth. So they'll still have some degree of AFV by, say, 1920, just not as good as OTL. Possibly better in some areas that are particularly touched by civilian developments.

Moving away from technology, another area that would benefit would be theoretical science. It's reasonably likely that you could speed up by at least several years a number of important theoretical developments, both due to the presence of additional people thinking about things and the absence of war-related interruptions. (I'm particularly thinking about physics here, but other sciences would probably benefit too; I just don't know enough about them to say how they might benefit). Some of this might feed back from the above technological developments, for example if early mechanical or electromechancial computers see more development and early electronic computers are perhaps being developed in the 1930s that would be quite helpful for theoretical science (if perhaps a bit unlikely, although computers do have a number of early-obvious non-military applications).

 

[Henriksson]

Indeedy. Quite a lot of clever young scientists, for instance, went off to die in the trenches. What no WWI is going to do is boost civilian technology development, of course, and probably somewhat retard or at least redirect military technology, but a lot of civilian development feeds back into military technology in the end. So, for instance, you might see enhanced development of car technology, with much less emphasis on armored vehicle development in the military than OTL (obviously)...but, of course, better car or truck engines can be used for tanks or armored cars, armored cars and tanks were already under development to a small extent at the beginning of the war, and so forth. So they'll still have some degree of AFV by, say, 1920, just not as good as OTL. Possibly better in some areas that are particularly touched by civilian developments.

It is undoubtedly odd that many are quick to point out that military technology can have knock-off effects on civilian, but the reverse is not held forth as much.

I'm pondering whether horses will start to be phased out sooner. That will certainly have a decisive effect as war goes, because even if tank advancement and tactics are not as developed, armies being very motorized/mechanized would be very significant. The German army was less mechanized during the second world war than the first one.

Moving away from technology, another area that would benefit would be theoretical science. It's reasonably likely that you could speed up by at least several years a number of important theoretical developments, both due to the presence of additional people thinking about things and the absence of war-related interruptions. (I'm particularly thinking about physics here, but other sciences would probably benefit too; I just don't know enough about them to say how they might benefit). Some of this might feed back from the above technological developments, for example if early mechanical or electromechancial computers see more development and early electronic computers are perhaps being developed in the 1930s that would be quite helpful for theoretical science (if perhaps a bit unlikely, although computers do have a number of early-obvious non-military applications).

I'd say they would get a huge to massive boost from the simple fact that there's peace - entailing more cooperation across national boundaries, as well as founding, and what I may clumsily call "direction" of science would be more towards theoretical sciences - correct me if I'm wrong. Germany's spot as the world center of science is less likely to decline, as well.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

1) aircraft development would be about 5 years behind what it was in 1919

Not necessarily. The loss of so many university students could have held things back. Not only that, but economic resources were taken away from research pursuits, so over 20 years things could well have evened out or even progressed further.

2) Subs would still be a part of the Scouting Fleet .

Yeah, probably. Still, there is the possibility that further technological developments would have made for experimentation in naval tactics.

3) air ship development might be further ahead .

Why? The military spent just as much on air ships as OTL and their limited commercial applications would become evident with a first Hindenburg-type disaster.

4) land tactics would still be mass of soldiers in straight lines with Cav still used as scouts .

Fire and maneuver was already being used well WW1. It was taking some time to fully implement across the European armies, but by 1920 all armies would be using a form of it. The Bayonet charge was on the way out by the 1910's with or without war. Especially with the development of motorized divisions, which was coming when the auto industry could provide reliable, cheap vehicles to the military, would upset the whole thing, as would the research into light machine guns, which was well advanced in 1914, but still not perfected.

I'm much more interested in the economic and social ramifications. Consider that only in the last decade has the world reached 1914 levels of international trade (as a percentage of GDP). We could well have had post industrial economies 50 years earlier without the world wars. Not to mention all of the writers and poets that died too young that would have had a chance to critique the 'wealth obsessed' societies that ruled the day.

 

[tchizek]

1) aircraft development would be about 5 years behind what it was in 1919 .

This seems to be a common thread but I am skeptical of this. The years before WWI were a period of VERY rapid development in aircraft design and engineering. There may be some details that are not developed as soon having to to with specifics about war-craft - interrupter gear comes to mind. But over all I would expect air-frame, engine, controls and sensors to be well ahead of OTL 1919 without the war. There was a lot of quick and dirty "throw it into the air to fight" going on that didn't advance the state of the art in aircraft design at all to go along with the real advances. My personal opinion is that overall aircraft development would look more like the mid 1920s (3-5 years ahead of OTL) rather than behind OTL without WWI.

Tom.

 

[Sir]

I would hope that just by avoiding the massive destruction of WWI, that the economy, and therefore technology, would be much better off.

 

[Viriato]

Assuming that there would be no world wars I believe that consumer technology would have especially developed differently. For instance before the war American automobiles were widely being exported to Europe. By 1914 40% of all automobiles sold in the UK were Model Ts. The reason for this was that tariffs were low and most countries were consistently reducing tariffs in the decades before the war.

In 1915 the United Kingdom placed a horsepower tax calculated on the bore of the cylinders that was especially disadvantageous to American cars such as the Model T. Other cash-strapped European countries soon followed suit. Assuming that there are no world wars we could see a few things happening. Firstly, with lower import duties mean that large American cars will be much more popular in Europe since they will cost much less than in OTL. Also, the buying power of Europeans will not be destroyed in WW1 and the subsequent depressions (in OTL the buying power of Europeans only began re-converging with with that of the Americans in the 1950s).

Finally, you would probably see the European manufacturers build larger cars with more horsepower to compete with the American imports. This will mean that British cars will probably be more popular in the Dominions as well as the Empire where driving conditions were more similar to those found in America (in OTL American cars remained popular in Africa until the 1960s). Finally, with the tendency towards reciprocity, the U.S. would lower their import duties you may even see European manufacturers make inroads into the American market much earlier than the 1960s.

Below are examples of the tariffs on imported cars prior to WWI and just before WWII for comparison.

Import Tariffs on Automobiles 1913
France 9-14%
Germany 3%
Italy 4-6%
Japan 0%
United Kingdom 0%

Import Tariffs on Automobiles 1937
France 47-74%
Germany 40%
Italy 101-111%
Japan 70%
United Kingdom 33 1/3%, (Empire built 22 1/9%)

 

[Grey Wolf]

A thing to note on submarines is that not every nation had them in their plans in the same way. The Russians certainly had more innovative ideas already.

Aircraft would be being built for endurance and distance if pre-war trends continue.

Airships may well have taken off!

Commercial radio in the USA would be on air ahead of schedule

I once read about Austro-Hungarian hovercraft

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Flubber]

A thing to note on submarines is that not every nation had them in their plans in the same way. The Russians certainly had more innovative ideas already.

Very much so. Russia was and is quite an innovator in many fields. I've often wondered what might have resulted if Russia had more of those submarines and the innovative ideas they represented in the Far East in 1904.

Aircraft would be being built for endurance and distance if pre-war trends continue.

Again, very much so. A lack of WW1 isn't going to retard aircraft development. That development is just going to move along a different path.

Airships may well have taken off!

I'm of two minds here. The Zeppelin company depended on military contracts and, as is usually the case with "defense" industries, was gently dissuaded from foreign commercial sales by the German government. The limited achievements of zeppelins during the war meant that the UK, US, and France all wanted and received reparation zeps at Versailles, but nothing came about from those "rep zeps" because no one had Germany's operational experience with the craft.

I could definitely see the launch of commercial passenger routes between Europe and Americas as a prestige project for Germany however. It would just be another wrinkle in the Atlantic Blue Ribbon competition.

Commercial radio in the USA would be on air ahead of schedule

Agreed. Household sets don't need to be portable or have integral power supplies, both of which were the primary developments for radio in WW1.

I once read about Austro-Hungarian hovercraft

I have too and the early development of hovercraft would be very intriguing.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I suspect, that so far as motor vehicles and aircraft are concerned , perhaps the delay of a wider war (and hopefully, no wider war at all), might help for development. Perhaps if the motor industry has another decade of peaceful development, armoured vehicles or aircraft might be more reliable platforms for militerisation?

One issue I’m not so sure about would be whether or not the changes in state organisation would have any real, immediate, positive or negative impacts on economic or scientific development. WW1 forced the governments of the varying coalitions to vastly increase their involvement in the ordering of the country, to organise and man the military forces, to organise the economy for supply, to pay for such changes. Without a big war, perhaps most of this doesn’t happen and so governments do not gain experience or need to be quite so large. Obviously, before the war, many Western countries were experiencing an increase of the state/government, for various reasons, so this may continue.

 

[BlondieBC]

The subject has come up in other threads, and there seems to be a notion among some that the absence of war would slow down technological development. I feel like we really need a thread for dedicated discussion on this topic. The details for how the Great War is averted is not of importance. Let us for the sake of argument say that without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, there are potential sparks for war similar to the Agadir crisis, but push never comes to shove.

Before going on, let me state the two obvious things (which also seem to be non-obvious):

1) The war killed off a generation of young men, many of which undoubtedly had skill and ideas.

2) The war wrecked Europe's economical network, and left it with an empty cupboard.

Discussion may commence.

War speeds up the development of military technologies, but slows down the development of the economy and non-military technology. As there is a huge boost in R-D spending, military tech surges in the wartime, but 20 years later, the overall technology is probably lower. Without WW1 and WW2, things like antibiotics, steroids, birth control pills, TV, motion picture cameras, mass transit technology could be decades ahead of OTL. But things directly used in wars such as submarine technology, diesel engines, and airplanes maybe a decade or two behind.

 

[BlondieBC]

I'm pondering whether horses will start to be phased out sooner. That will certainly have a decisive effect as war goes, because even if tank advancement and tactics are not as developed, armies being very motorized/mechanized would be very significant. The German army was less mechanized during the second world war than the first one.

In some of the prewar spending bills, the German army asked to greatly the size of the motorized logistic units, but the expansion was not approved. By the mid-20's, Germany would have had multiple corps of motorized infantry. Motorized infantry just solved too many problems with an attack on France to be ignored. It is a realistic POD for Germany to have at least a full motorized corp in 1914. Not AFV, but infantry units with enough trucks to move entirely by road until contact with the enemy. Just imagine the benefit to the Germans of being able to move a corp size element at 100+ miles per day.

Very much so. Russia was and is quite an innovator in many fields. I've often wondered what might have resulted if Russia had more of those submarines and the innovative ideas they represented in the Far East in 1904.

Writers from the 1907-1909 period agree that submarines would have prevented the Japanese Navy from operating with 50 to 100 miles of a Russian port. It was seen as a weapon that would have won the war for Russia.

 

[Flubber]

Writers from the 1907-1909 period agree that submarines would have prevented the Japanese Navy from operating with 50 to 100 miles of a Russian port.

Reality from the 1914-1918 period proved them wrong, just as an alt-use of submarines in the Russo-Japanese War would have proved them wrong.

It was seen as a weapon that would have won the war for Russia.

Submarines aren't going to stop the arrival of the 1905 Revolution, which was the primary reason Russia lost the war.

What might prove interesting would be Russia's use of submarines as mine layers, that role was one of the many innovations Russia explored. Port Arthur, where Russian submarines could be based, and Dalny, where Japanese supplies arrived, are remarkably close. They're so close that an expanding Dalny/Dalian actually annexed Port Arthur/Lushun sometime in the 1950s. A mine laying campaign against Dalny by a Russian sub or subs based in Port Arthur would have given the Japanese fits. Dalny wouldn't have been permanently closed, but Japan could have been discomforted.

Mines played an important role in the war. The Japanese lost two battleships to them, something they managed to hide during the course of the war. Imagine what may have happened if the freighter carrying those irreplaceable 11-inch howitzers had hit a mine while entering Dalny and those guns weren't available for the siege.

 

[BlondieBC]

Reality from the 1914-1918 period proved them wrong, just as an alt-use of submarines in the Russo-Japanese War would have proved them wrong.



Submarines aren't going to stop the arrival of the 1905 Revolution, which was the primary reason Russia lost the war.

What might prove interesting would be Russia's use of submarines as mine layers, that role was one of the many innovations Russia explored. Port Arthur, where Russian submarines could be based, and Dalny, where Japanese supplies arrived, are remarkably close. They're so close that an expanding Dalny/Dalian actually annexed Port Arthur/Lushun sometime in the 1950s. A mine laying campaign against Dalny by a Russian sub or subs based in Port Arthur would have given the Japanese fits. Dalny wouldn't have been permanently closed, but Japan could have been discomforted.

Mines played an important role in the war. The Japanese lost two battleships to them, something they managed to hide during the course of the war. Imagine what may have happened if the freighter carrying those irreplaceable 11-inch howitzers had hit a mine while entering Dalny and those guns weren't available for the siege.

Which battle in the 1914-1918 shows your position to be true?

The writers were not talking about submarines alone, but submarines as part of the general defense of a fortified port.

In Gallipoli, submarines, mines and coastal batteries repelled 1 dreadnought and 18 pre-dreadnoughts. And the Ottomans had issues with not enough ammo. WW1 showed sustained operation of surface ships near submarine defended fortified ports was at best difficult, and generally a poor strategy. Gallipoli was both a land and sea victory for the Central Powers.

As to your second part of your reply, it is not relevant. The writers believed it. No amount of post 1910 analysis will change what people believed in the 1907-1909 period.

 

[Grey Wolf]

With regard to aircraft, the little wars had seen some use of them, such as the Italo-Turkish War, and since the presumption of "no conflict whatsoever" seems rather unrealistic, one would assume that the development of aeroplanes in warfare would continue, with small bursts of innovation based on experience in these lesser conflicts.

On a side note, the Russians actually had submarines in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War

http://www.alternate-history-fiction.com/russian-submarines-1904.html

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Flubber]

Which battle in the 1914-1918 shows your position to be true?

No single battle, rather the constant actions that occurred between the Harwich Force and their German counterparts. Both sides routinely skirmished with each other well within 50 miles of their respective operational ports.

Submarines of this period simply couldn't enforce the "total exclusion zone" so many pre-war writers believed they could.

The writers were not talking about submarines alone...

Your quote did so, however, and I was merely responding to that. I had no way of knowing that other capabilities like mines and shore batteries were also part of the equation.

In Gallipoli, submarines, mines and coastal batteries repelled 1 dreadnought and 18 pre-dreadnoughts.

No. During the first attempt to force the Straits, mines alone inflicted damage on the Entente forces. The decision to withdraw was made partially on that basis and partially on a collapse of confidence among the Entente commanders.

It was during the later amphibious campaign that torpedoes from a German sub sank Entente battleships engaged on fire support.

As to your second part of your reply, it is not relevant. The writers believed it. No amount of post 1910 analysis will change what people believed in the 1907-1909 period.

Sadly, seeing as we're discussing technological development without a WW1, what people believed in 1907-09 is of no matter.

 

[Flubber]

On a side note, the Russians actually had submarines in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War.

Thank you for the link.

I've seen photos of a grounded and subsequently abandoned Russian sub captured by Japanese troops. IIRC, the incident occurred near the mouth of the Tumen.

It's interesting to note this quote at the linked site:

After the end of the war the Russian Admiralty concluded that a submarine was a defensive weapon of a very limited value. Therefore no serious attempts were made to go on with development of submarine forces ; hence at the break of WWI Russia had very few submarines to inflict any losses upon the enemy.

 

[BlondieBC]

No single battle, rather the constant actions that occurred between the Harwich Force and their German counterparts. Both sides routinely skirmished with each other well within 50 miles of their respective operational ports.

Submarines of this period simply couldn't enforce the "total exclusion zone" so many pre-war writers believed they could.



Your quote did so, however, and I was merely responding to that. I had no way of knowing that other capabilities like mines and shore batteries were also part of the equation.



No. During the first attempt to force the Straits, mines alone inflicted damage on the Entente forces. The decision to withdraw was made partially on that basis and partially on a collapse of confidence among the Entente commanders.

It was during the later amphibious campaign that torpedoes from a German sub sank Entente battleships engaged on fire support.



Sadly, seeing as we're discussing technological development without a WW1, what people believed in 1907-09 is of no matter.

Yes, you could raid around a defended port at great risks, but not stay near the port. Also, I never said alone, and neither did the writers. The ADDITION of submarines to existing defenses would have kept the Japanese navy away. So there are minefields, torpedo boats, coastal batteries, AND a Russian surface fleet. The position of the writers seems to be correct.

I said submarines were at Port Arthur. For some reason you decide that the Russian would withdraw all other naval forces. Did you also assume they would withdrawal all land units? If I said 400 B-17 could have defended Singapore in 1941/42, would you then assume that all the fighters were withdrawn?

In Gallipoli, 3 BB were lost to U-boats. Gallipolli showed that attacking a fortified ports with defenses that include a submarines is at best very difficult, and often impossible. Has a fortified port connected to a continent and defended by a substantial number of submarines ever been successfully taken and held by amphibious assault?

Your reply was still irrelevant. You quoted me, then did an irrelevant rebuttal. If you just want to take a position, you could have just posted a reply, not quoted me. You specifically quote one sentence of mine, then did a reply that has no bearing. I accept you believe what you posted, but even if it is 100% true, my statement can still be 100% true. If I would have said that Hitler believe Russia was easy to beat in April 1941, and you reply, no that is not true, Hitler knew Russia was strong in April 1945, it does not disprove my statement. Time only flows one way.

 

[Flubber]

Also, I never said alone...

Please point to any mention of mines, coastal batteries, or other forces in this statement:

Writers from the 1907-1909 period agree that submarines would have prevented the Japanese Navy from operating with 50 to 100 miles of a Russian port.

I said submarines were at Port Arthur. For some reason you decide that the Russian would withdraw all other naval forces. Did you also assume they would withdrawal all land units? If I said 400 B-17 could have defended Singapore in 1941/42, would you then assume that all the fighters were withdrawn?

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

In Gallipoli, 3 BB were lost to U-boats.

Yes, three battleships were torpedoed.

Gallipolli showed that attacking a fortified ports with defenses that include a submarines is at best very difficult, and often impossible.

No, it did not. Again, during the first and purely naval attempt to force the Strait, the Entente force faced shore batteries and mines alone. There were no submarines engaged on the Turkish/CP side at that time.

Over two months later the land campaign began and it was during that campaign that the three battleships were torpedoed; two by German submarines and one by a Turkish destroyer.

The landings around Cape Hellas were not an attack on a fortified port however.

Your reply was still irrelevant. You quoted me, then did an irrelevant rebuttal. If you just want to take a position, you could have just posted a reply, not quoted me. You specifically quote one sentence of mine, then did a reply that has no bearing. I accept you believe what you posted, but even if it is 100% true, my statement can still be 100% true. If I would have said that Hitler believe Russia was easy to beat in April 1941, and you reply, no that is not true, Hitler knew Russia was strong in April 1945, it does not disprove my statement. Time only flows one way.

I'm sorry but you've lost me again.