Most significant technological improvement in each war?

Charge 7

Master Gunner
What do you feel was the most significant technological improvement in each war that you care to mention? For the sake of brevity I'll ask you to keep it to four different wars. Please give a short reason why you listed them. I'll start it off:

WWII: The Liberty ship. Not fancy but it allowed the Allies to move a vast amount of critical material in a relatively short amount of time.

WWI: The French 75 breachloading cannon. For the first time artillery could be fired without time consuming relaying of the piece enabling a great amount of uninterrupted fire power.

Austro-Prussian War: The Needle gun. Troops could now load and fire from the prone position. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that making yourself a smaller target helps alot.

The Crimean War: Armored warships. True they were more in the nature of barges than ships but the concept led to the iron clads of the American Civil War and all modern navies today.
 
World War I: Combat aircraft. Changed the face of the battlefield forever.

World War II: Atomic weapon. It would go on to define the next 50 years during both war and peace.

Korea: Combat helicopter. Revolutionized combat force mobility.

Vietnam: Guided munitions. Guided bombs first started to appear in Vietnam. Revolutionized air strikes. What used to require entire squadrons of airplanes (and previously, HUNDREDS of B-17s) could be done with a single airplane carrying a single bomb.

Gulf War: Advanced command and control and Stealth technology. Advanced command and control technology meant American commanders could coordinate and communicate faster than their hostile counterparts. This meant every move the Americans made was much faster, less confusing and better coordinated. Imagine chess where you can move 4 steps for every 1 the opponent can take. Stealth technology allowed jets to hit targets without taking casualties, where before such strikes would mean several dozen would be lost.

by the way, nice thread.
 
This isn't a "you're wrong I'm right" but just a couple observations.

I don't really think the atomic bomb qualifies as a technology of WWII despite the fact that it occurred at the end of that conflict. It wasn't used prevelantly during the course of the war. Most historians place it as the first shot of WWIII. Whether that's wrong or right can probably be put in another discussion.

Also, the Germans had guided missles in WWII. They used a radio controled missle to take out ships in the Mediterranean in the latter stages of the war.

And thanks! I hope to have more good discussions with you all!
 
But guided weapons were still too much in their infancy to be of any real practical use. The fact that they were not used in Korea proves this further.
It was in Vietnam that the guided weapon became a practical weapon.
In fact, World War I isn't the first war that used airplanes. The First Balkan War of 1912 used airplanes, but these were far worse than the ones that would follow in 1914. Not having made a significant impact, I don't attribute the airplane's entry as an effective war machine until the First World War.

To count the atom bomb drop as the first shot of World War III is quite a stretch because Japan would be on America's side for "World War III." In fact, the link between World War I and World War II are also direct, so if you want a link, you would link World War I, II and III into one big massive war, and in fact, throw in all the Balkan Wars as well.
Everything is linked with everything.
The Atom bomb was a product of World War II, which went on to define the Cold War. It was the one thing that all sides were rushing to perfect before the other.
 
Okay I'll grant you the guided missles, but just can't buy the atomic bomb as the most significant technology of WWII if it comes at the very end. It didn't really affect the the fighting of the war during its duration but rather ended the fighting at all. Not quite the same thing but maybe I'm quibbling. Just a personal belief and not a carved in stone fact.
 
Ok I'll bite. :)

Battle of Adrianople 378 - heavy cavalry for the first time displaced heavy infantry as the prime influence on the battlefield. The beginning of the end of the dominance of the Roman Legion.

Battle of Agincourt 1415 - the English Longbow for the first time disputed the role of the armoured knight as the dominant force on the battlefield, also allowed a far inferior force to defeat a numerically superior force with relative ease.

WW1 - introduction of the tank was one of the major reasons why the stalemate of 3 years of war was broken. Germany, usually well to the fore of military technology, was caught completely by surprise and had little answer.

WW2 - advent of the ground attack aircraft. Employed by all sides in the conflict this variant of air power came of age and was instrumental in both the early German Blitzkrieg victories and the later Allied triumphs.
 
The tank came towards the end of the First World War didn't it? Actually I'd say for the First World War, the airplane and the tank might be tied.

Charge_7 said:
Okay I'll grant you the guided missles, but just can't buy the atomic bomb as the most significant technology of WWII if it comes at the very end. It didn't really affect the the fighting of the war during its duration but rather ended the fighting at all. Not quite the same thing but maybe I'm quibbling. Just a personal belief and not a carved in stone fact.
 
Doppleganger said:
Ok I'll bite. :)

Battle of Agincourt 1415 - the English Longbow for the first time disputed the role of the armoured knight as the dominant force on the battlefield, also allowed a far inferior force to defeat a numerically superior force with relative ease.

You're off by about 70 years and have the wrong battle but the point is well made. You should refer to the Battle of Crecy in 1346 instead of Agincourt.

http://www.archeryweb.com/archery/crecy.htm
 
WWII: Effective designs and correct usage of tanks. Nobody lacking decent numbers and designs of tanks was successful vs anybody who did. The USA could make all the Liberty Ships they wanted, but without tanks they would have never have succeeded at anything. Also, it was because of the correct usage of tanks that Germany was able to come out victorious against seemingly unsurmoutable odds.

On the Pacific/Asia side -- tanks were not used well on the continent. Not terribly useful for island battles. Aircraft Carriers were probably the most significant new things on those fronts.

WWI: The French 75 breachloading cannon I can agree -- was certainly one of the most significant. Other strong candidates include: Bigger and better machine guns. Chemical Warfare. Landmines.

Pre-WW1 Conflicts The HMS Dreadnaught so radically altered the design of warships and navies that everyone was forced to hurriedly scramble to update their naval arsenals.

100 Years War English Longbow

Mongolian Conquests Mongolian composite/recurve shortbow, and the idea of an army composed of nothing but cavalry.

Greece City-States vs Persia Wars The Phallanx. It was a concept that would continue to stun the world for centuries to come - in various forms.
 
And how about the research of Wernherr von Braun in rocket technology ?

I don´t think spacecrafts like the shuttles would be existing today without him continuing his work in NM and Huntsville.

But Radar is also a good example. Also the jet engines would be a good thing to remember.


T.G.I.
 
American Civil War- General issue of rifled muskets virtually ended Napoleonic style formations.

WWII- Long Range Heavy payload Bombers.

WWI - I agree with the French 75mm. But would also add the wide spread use of Submarines to attack shipping.

Korea- First major use of jet powered military aircraft in combat as a major part of an air force.
 
Godofthunder I asked that you limit it to 4 conflicts and you listed 6. Also, you could make all the tanks you want but if the Liberty ships hadn't delivered them in significant quantities it wouldn't have mattered. Ask any tank crewman who served in a Sherman in WWII. The only way they could defeat German armor was by mass of numbers. It took three or four Shermans to defeat one Tiger. Fortunately US production was able to make that many and the liberty ships enabled them to get there.
 
Logistics is a big part of war. Never to be taken for granted. There's no point in having the best unit in the world if you can't deploy and sustain it.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Logistics is a big part of war. Never to be taken for granted. There's no point in having the best unit in the world if you can't deploy and sustain it.

It's the most important part of war IMO. You could argue that WW2 was won and lost on the correct application of logistics.
 
That's a real good point.
But I also believe that the quality of troops and equipment is also key. It gets kind of weird when you can send troops over there but they just keep getting their @$$es kicked.
 
Back
Top