no ww1, impact on science and technology

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

I don't think war itself drives progress. If anything, competition drives progress.

You can't be serious ?

The examples of war or the threat of war or the desire to win (or just not loose) a war spawning game changing developments are legion and go right back into antiquity.
I already provided some examples, but since you have introduced the tank as an example let us examine its history.

 

The tank was conceived and introduced in ww1 where the primitive originals are said to have made a difference, although late into the war.

The tank was a significant factor in the first half of ww2, but by the end had become militarily obsolete by the successful introduction of anti tank rockets onto the worlds most successful military aircraft ever.

After the war the company that invented this aircraft attempted to follow it up with a commercial airliner based on it.
Not only was this airliner a tragic technological failure, it finally broke the company that made it.

Edited June 15, 2021 by studiot

[swansont]

And to my point above, nobody was going to develop the tank on their own.

[Hans de Vries]

BTW look at how fast the jet aircraft developed after ww2. You went from pretty basic fighters like MiG-15/17 and F-86 in 1950 to Mach 2+ aircraft firing guided missiles in 1960. Basically every jet fighter introduced into service in 1950s was throughly obsolete 5 years after entering service.

 

It is true that the tank developed fast during ww2. However one cannot say that it's development would not be fast without the war as well. Many iconic revolutionary ww2 designs were actually designed BEFORE the war:

T-34 designed 1937-39, introduced 1940

Bf-109 introduced in 1937

Sherman designed in 1940 (before US entry into the war)

 

My take is that ww2 just coincided with a period of particularily fast development in certain areas of technology like tanks and aircraft. Without it at worst the development will lag 3-4 years behind which is nothing

 

 

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

And to my point above, nobody was going to develop the tank on their own.

How sure are you of that? Countries continued development of new tanks after ww1 and they continued to improve. Same is true for fighters - they used to get faster in 1930s until development of engines and mechanical engineering finally allowed monoplanes to become viable

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Hans de Vries said:

How sure are you of that? Countries continued development of new tanks after ww1 and they continued to improve. Same is true for fighters - they used to get faster in 1930s until development of engines and mechanical engineering finally allowed monoplanes to become viable

Who paid for the development? Who were the customers?

 

edit: It wasn’t the US doing this. from 1920 to 1935, the US produced no more than 35 tanks (p. 75)

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R1860.pdf

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Hans de Vries said:

BTW look at how fast the jet aircraft developed after ww2. You went from pretty basic fighters like MiG-15/17 and F-86 in 1950 to Mach 2+ aircraft firing guided missiles in 1960. Basically every jet fighter introduced into service in 1950s was throughly obsolete 5 years after entering service.

We were either facing the threat of war or at actual war during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s

I was in Hungary at the beginning of the 1956 uprising.

So you continue to demonstrate my point.

[SergUpstart]

2 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

BTW look at how fast the jet aircraft developed after ww2. You went from pretty basic fighters like MiG-15/17 and F-86 in 1950 to Mach 2+ aircraft firing guided missiles in 1960. Basically every jet fighter introduced into service in 1950s was throughly obsolete 5 years after entering service.

Jet fighters appeared during the WW2, Me-262 1944. At the same time, the first Wasserfal SAMs appeared.

[Endy0816]

I think once Haber-Bosch process was discovered a big war was inevitable.

 

[Hans de Vries]

9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

I think once Haber-Bosch process was discovered a big war was inevitable.

 

Not really since ww1 was mostly caused by two people, Wilhelm II and Conrad von Hotzendorf. 

Germany itself estimated that by 1916 Russia will be too strong to defeat. If ww1 is avoided for a few more years and there will be a high chance it never happens. Germanyu was the Silicon Valley of early 1900s and it would make the kenel of European integration as it did after ww2

[studiot]

An interesting historical point.

Would some Americans like to comment on what they regard as the dates for ww1 and ww2 ?

I ask because there is a memorial to the 1944 - 1945 war at the 'Drielanderpunkt'.

[Endy0816]

47 minutes ago, studiot said:

An interesting historical point.

Would some Americans like to comment on what they regard as the dates for ww1 and ww2 ?

I ask because there is a memorial to the 1944 - 1945 war at the 'Drielanderpunkt'.

1914 and 1941. Though we do focus on broad causes for the war and US entry.

Is that plaque at Brockhall by any chance? Thought may be in reference to the espionage work that went on.

3 hours ago, Hans de Vries said:

Not really since ww1 was mostly caused by two people, Wilhelm II and Conrad von Hotzendorf. 

Germany itself estimated that by 1916 Russia will be too strong to defeat. If ww1 is avoided for a few more years and there will be a high chance it never happens. Germanyu was the Silicon Valley of early 1900s and it would make the kenel of European integration as it did after ww2

Think it would of simply had another random touch off event.

Something along the lines of an accelerated timeline War Plan Red going awry instead, for instance. Canada is invaded by the US. England calls in help from their allies. With Russia and France fighting the US, Germany is soon convinced to join the American side.

[Hans de Vries]

Why would US want to invade Canada out of thin air?

It had good relations with Canada due to economic and cultural ties.

[MigL]

Ha !
Niagara Falls would be the Americans' Borodino.
After that, Canadian winter would set in, and the Americans would have to retreat with their tails between their legs.
( reference to Napoleon's invasion of Russia )

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Hans de Vries said:

Why would US want to invade Canada out of thin air?

Right, because it's not like something like this has ever happened! <wink, wink>

[studiot]

29 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

1914 and 1941. Though we do focus on broad causes for the war and US entry.

Is that plaque at Brockhall by any chance? Thought may be in reference to the espionage work that went on.

Thanks for that.

Interesting reply since we have

1914 - 1918

and

1939 - 1945

 

The only Brockhall I can trace is a small village in Lancashire.

The 'Drielanderpunkt' is point where the borders of 3 countries meet.

So you can step from Germany to Belgium to the Netherlands around it.

On the German side there is nothing but wooded country.

On the Dutch side there is a small tourist park.

On the Belgian side there is the war memorial commemorating the 1944 - 1945 war  and more wooded countryside.

 

Until I saw this I never really thought about it, but rather assumed that everyone had the same dates for these most significant wars.

Interesting that America didn't enter ww1 until 1917, but you count it from 1914, yet counts ww2 from 1941, not 1939.

[Endy0816]

28 minutes ago, Hans de Vries said:

Why would US want to invade Canada out of thin air?

It had good relations with Canada due to economic and cultural ties.

Was to prevent our weak northern border from being used against us in a conflict with Britain.

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ha !
Niagara Falls would be the Americans' Borodino.
After that, Canadian winter would set in, and the Americans would have to retreat with their tails between their legs.
( reference to Napoleon's invasion of Russia )

Yeah I have a feeling we would have been at the very least bogged down come winter lol.

56 minutes ago, studiot said:

The 'Drielanderpunkt' is point where the borders of 3 countries meet.

So you can step from Germany to Belgium to the Netherlands around it.

On the German side there is nothing but wooded country.

On the Dutch side there is a small tourist park.

On the Belgian side there is the war memorial commemorating the 1944 - 1945 war  and more wooded countryside.

Got my dates mixed up, you're right actually.

Not sure on the plaque then.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Drielanderpunkt

I am really sorry for being that pedantic, but I would like to point out that "three" in German is "drei". It is one of the weird differences between English and German and a bit of a pet peeve of mine (same with "stein" vs "stien"). I can live with the umlaut thingy but the the other thing just scratches at my soul (which basically means I spent too much time in Germany).

[SergUpstart]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Ha !
Niagara Falls would be the Americans' Borodino.
After that, Canadian winter would set in, and the Americans would have to retreat with their tails between their legs.
( reference to Napoleon's invasion of Russia )

Many historians refer to the Napoleonic Wars series as World War Zero. And in the course of this WW0, not only Moscow was burned, but also Washington.

The burning of Washington was an event that occurred in 1814 during the War of 1812-1815 between Great Britain and the United States. On August 24, 1814, after the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg, British troops under Major General Robert Ross occupied the city of Washington and burned many government buildings, including the White House and the Capitol, as well as several others. [2] The order of the British commander to set fire only to public buildings, combined with strict discipline in the ranks of the British troops, made it possible to avoid damage to private city buildings. The attack on Washington was part of an operation to retaliate against the Americans for the raid on Port Dover.

[studiot]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am really sorry for being that pedantic, but I would like to point out that "three" in German is "drei". It is one of the weird differences between English and German and a bit of a pet peeve of mine (same with "stein" vs "stien"). I can live with the umlaut thingy but the the other thing just scratches at my soul (which basically means I spent too much time in Germany).

Don't be sorry, you are absolutely correct and I should have known better.
But I get little chance to practise my German these days and the 'ei v ie' mistake is probably the most common for an Englishman.