WW1 with muskets

Say that world history goes much as IOTL, with the exception of weapons technology, which goes somewhat slower, the result being that in 1914 weapons technology is still where it was in OTL's Napoleonic Wars. How does this affect the course of the fighting when war breaks out in 1914?
 
Say that world history goes much as IOTL, with the exception of weapons technology, which goes somewhat slower, the result being that in 1914 weapons technology is still where it was in OTL's Napoleonic Wars. How does this affect the course of the fighting when war breaks out in 1914?
There will be no trench warfare.Soldiers will still be wearing bright coloured uniforms and you will basically be fighting a Napoleonic war 2.0.
 
Last edited:
There will be no trench warfare.Soldiers will still be wearing bright coloured uniforms and you will basically be fighting a Napoleonic warfare 2.0.

Seconded. There are no machine guns, artillery is still breech-loaded and the cavalry is still relevant. That's not WW1, that's 1861 all over again.
 
If weapon technoligy would be level of early 19th century on 20th century, history would goes pretty differently. WW1 would be different time and totally unrecognsible.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Say that world history goes much as IOTL, with the exception of weapons technology, which goes somewhat slower, the result being that in 1914 weapons technology is still where it was in OTL's Napoleonic Wars. How does this affect the course of the fighting when war breaks out in 1914?


War is declared between the German/British/Dutch coalition with Austro-Hungary against the French-Russian Coalition following an escalation of tensions in the Balkans following the collapse of the Ottomans. German troops march across open fields to face the French, the British shelling seaside towns form the comfort of ships. Without the Machine Gun a stalemate is never met, the German's marching right into Parisian Suburbs before being held back by barricades. A siege of Paris is soon underway. Meanwhile in the east Germany and Russia are pretty much equal on a technological term, however with the help of rebelling ethnic minorities the German Army are able to push into Belorussia. Due to rain, the German's comes up with the idea of a powderless rifle that use a pin bolt and cartridge. They win the war in a few months and the rifle is distributed among German Allies like the Kalashnikov for Russians.
 
I doubt that weapon tech is able to go "slower" than "other" tech. Inventions in metallurgy that are needed to build complex machines would certainly have an impact in weapon design too.

Even if no better weapons are available the war would be much different from for example the napoleonic wars.

railroads allow mass army movements

steamships allow fast movement around the globe

better quality steel allows "Body armor" (rerise of Knights?) that actually is not too heavy and still is able to withstand musket balls.

self propelled vehicles: Mount big shields in front and your infantry moves up to the enemy without being in danger of being hit by enemy fire (no indirect fire weapons except "mortars"

(Short) swords, axes and so on might be choice weapons as you can't be hurt from a distance, so melee is the only way to fight effectively.

The problem is: without modern weaponry the defensive measure improvements that OTHER technology allows will render "muskets" obsolete. Either you develop better firearms or you have to think of other ways to hurt your enemy.

When it was possible to build metal ships the existing gunnery was suddenly not able to even scratch the better armed ships (The Monitor, Battle of Lissa). In the battle of lissa they used the ships to ram the enemy (like in ancient times) to win the battle. Offensive guns soon caught up with armor. So as long as one field of tech develops other fields have to develop too.
 
I doubt that weapon tech is able to go "slower" than "other" tech. Inventions in metallurgy that are needed to build complex machines would certainly have an impact in weapon design too.

Even if no better weapons are available the war would be much different from for example the napoleonic wars.

railroads allow mass army movements

steamships allow fast movement around the globe

better quality steel allows "Body armor" (rerise of Knights?) that actually is not too heavy and still is able to withstand musket balls.

self propelled vehicles: Mount big shields in front and your infantry moves up to the enemy without being in danger of being hit by enemy fire (no indirect fire weapons except "mortars"

(Short) swords, axes and so on might be choice weapons as you can't be hurt from a distance, so melee is the only way to fight effectively.

The problem is: without modern weaponry the defensive measure improvements that OTHER technology allows will render "muskets" obsolete. Either you develop better firearms or you have to think of other ways to hurt your enemy.

When it was possible to build metal ships the existing gunnery was suddenly not able to even scratch the better armed ships (The Monitor, Battle of Lissa). In the battle of lissa they used the ships to ram the enemy (like in ancient times) to win the battle. Offensive guns soon caught up with armor. So as long as one field of tech develops other fields have to develop too.

So you think that most combat would be hand-to-hand again? Interesting.

I suppose one obvious result of this would be that casualties are lower than IOTL, which would have obvious effects on the way the war is remembered afterwards. I'm not sure how this would affect the war while it's still on-going, though. Maybe less extensive conscription (as not so many losses to replace) leads to less severe economic consequences? Then again, this might just mean that the war lasts longer...
 
Top