WWI fought with WWII technology?

Well if Wilhelm hadn't sacked Bismarck and had such grandiose imperialistic and military ambitions he might have been able to stave it off for a few years. Though because of the European alliances i doubt it could stay peaceful until the 1940s. It wasn't like the Cold War where nukes kept the balance. Bedsides without the war why develop alot of the weapons we had in WW2?
 
not as we know ww1

The british/german coldwar was going to have to stop sometime if only because nobody could afford the continuous build up anymore... also Russia's political system (Austria-Hungary too) was too unstable to stay such as it was for any prolonged period of time, and once they change into something else, (AH also) there is no assurance that the alliance structure will remain the same
 
There wouldn't be WWII technology without WWI. No tanks, no submachine guns, no trucks, no bombers, no fighters, smaller aircraft carriers (if there are any at all).

True, an arms build up during a cold war period MAY have produced these things but, they would be a lot less effective because they wouldn't have been tested in battle, no trial by fire.
 
You'd probably see development of aircraft, but attitudes on how they should be used probably would be the same as 1914, barring someone coming along between 1914 and the start of the Great War with unusual ideas. Tanks seem unlikely to be developed at all.

No trucks? Am the only one confused here?
 
We can have a large proxy war somewhere else to test this new technologies. Maybe with China/Japan, or somewhere in North America (where the terrain more like Europe's).
 

Markus

Banned
You'd probably see development of aircraft, but attitudes on how they should be used probably would be the same as 1914, barring someone coming along between 1914 and the start of the Great War with unusual ideas. Tanks seem unlikely to be developed at all.

No trucks? Am the only one confused here?

No, you are not but otherwise he is spot on.

Back to the OP´s question. No Anglo-German naval arms race would have helped keep Britain friendly but Russia was actually getting more stable and more powerful in the yeras before the war. But starting a fight with Germany was not high on their agenda, A-H was another matter.
 
No, you are not but otherwise he is spot on.

Agreed.

Back to the OP´s question. No Anglo-German naval arms race would have helped keep Britain friendly but Russia was actually getting more stable and more powerful in the yeras before the war. But starting a fight with Germany was not high on their agenda, A-H was another matter.

Unfortunately for Russia, a war with A-H will probably mean a war with Germany.
 

Markus

Banned
Agreed.



Unfortunately for Russia, a war with A-H will probably mean a war with Germany.

I have an idea! Kaiser Bill´s dad Frederick died of cancer at the age of 56 in 1888 after a reign of a mere three months. He was very much in favour of a constitutional monarchy a´la Britain. Bismarck kept him away from power while he was Crown Prince and managed to turn Billy against his parents. Let Frederick live another 20 years and the 2nd Empire will look completely different from our TL´s and little Billy won´t be able to turn back the clock.
 
No trucks? Am the only one confused here?

No, you are not but otherwise he is spot on.

I believe trucks were developed during the first world war to better transport wounded, supplies, fresh troops etc to the front lines and from the front lines.
 
I believe trucks were developed during the first world war to better transport wounded, supplies, fresh troops etc to the front lines and from the front lines.

No.

The truck is one of the most obvious possible applications of the internal combustion engine, in some shape or form. There are also multiple places which would suggest it, agricultural tractors for instance (around since the 1850s), cars themselves (which obviously existed prior to WWI), and so on. Tanks, too...you will see a different evolutionary path, for sure; they're more likely to evolve out of armored cars. But you will most likely see tracked AFVs sooner or later.

EDIT: In any event, the first trucks appeared only shortly after the first cars, so well before WWI. They weren't very good, of course, but they were still trucks.
 
No.

The truck is one of the most obvious possible applications of the internal combustion engine, in some shape or form. There are also multiple places which would suggest it, agricultural tractors for instance (around since the 1850s), cars themselves (which obviously existed prior to WWI), and so on. Tanks, too...you will see a different evolutionary path, for sure; they're more likely to evolve out of armored cars. But you will most likely see tracked AFVs sooner or later.

EDIT: In any event, the first trucks appeared only shortly after the first cars, so well before WWI. They weren't very good, of course, but they were still trucks.

Well then, my high school history teacher deserves some hate mail.
 
Well then, my high school history teacher deserves some hate mail.

My experience of high school history teachers leads me to believe that my cat could do a better job.

I had to point out to my sons history teacher that Robert Louis Stephenson did not build the steam locomotive Rocket. Because (a) he wasnt born at the time and (b) he was a world famous scottish writer of historical romances not a world famous english engineer.
 
Top