World War I Buffs

[nboy22]

Hello everyone, I'm looking for some help from some World War I buffs, or just some people who have general knowledge of WWI weaponry/tech.

I am looking for opinions on what the most impressive piece of technology/weaponry was during WWI (in your opinion).

This is for a class project, I'm not looking for you to do my homework for me. Just trying to get a general idea of what some people think about the technology/weaponry in WWI so that I can keep my peers' attention when presenting.

If I have time, I'm looking at creating 3D models of the guns that are suggested, and possibly any other technological gadget.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The machine gun without a doubt.

 

[nboy22]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The machine gun without a doubt.

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

 

[keird]

The tank was pretty revolutionary, but wasn't employed well. Ask a German how.

 

[ElFenix]

railway guns were the most impressive weapons put to use. probably just about useless, but very impressive.

 

[lxskllr]

Poison gas
Tanks

 

[rudder]

The heavier than air flying machine. Started out as a surveillance tool and developed into a fighting machine that shaped all future wars. Even the naval battles of World War 2 were fought differently. The most famous battles took place without the various ships seeing each other. These naval battles were fought with the airplane.

 

[techs]

The Maxim machine gun desgin which was used by both sides.
Poison gas.
Aeroplanes.

However, if you want the invention that was the most necessary for WW1, according to Gen. John Pershing, it was the railroad.
Only the railroad allowed for the huge armies to be supplied at the front. While railroads were used in the American Civil War they were never extended and built so close to the front. The armies of WW1 used massive amounts of ordinance and men. Without the railroads the horses, mules and rudimentary motor vehicles would not have been able to keep modern armies in the field.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: techs
The Maxim machine gun desgin which was used by both sides.
Poison gas.
Aeroplanes.

However, if you want the invention that was the most necessary for WW1, according to Gen. John Pershing, it was the railroad.
Only the railroad allowed for the huge armies to be supplied at the front. While railroads were used in the American Civil War they were never extended and built so close to the front. The armies of WW1 used massive amounts of ordinance and men. Without the railroads the horses, mules and rudimentary motor vehicles would not have been able to keep modern armies in the field.

While that may be true, it was much more dramatically demonstrated during the Franco-Prussian war.

No, how about the Fokker Dr. I? Ruled the skies for germany for more than a year, IIRC.

Hmm, apparently, I was thinking about the fokker eindecker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_Eindecker

 

[FoBoT]

i'd go with mustard gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas

Mustard gas was first used effectively in World War I by the German army against British soldiers near Ypres in July 1917 and later also against the French Second Army. The name Yperite comes from its usage by the German army near the city of Ypres. The Allies did not use the gas until November 1917 at Cambrai, after they captured a large stock of German mustard-filled shells. It took the British over a year to develop their own mustard gas weapon (their only option was the Despretz?Niemann?Guthrie process), first using it in September 1918 during the breaking of the Hindenburg Line.
Mustard gas was dispersed as an aerosol in a mixture with other chemicals, giving it a yellow-brown colour and a distinctive odor. Mustard gas has also been dispersed in such munitions as aerial bombs, land mines, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and rockets[1]. Mustard gas was lethal in only about 1% of cases; its effectiveness was as an incapacitating agent. Countermeasures against the gas were relatively ineffective, since a soldier wearing a gas mask was not protected against absorbing it through the skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...son_gas_in_World_War_I

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: techs
The Maxim machine gun desgin which was used by both sides.
Poison gas.
Aeroplanes.

However, if you want the invention that was the most necessary for WW1, according to Gen. John Pershing, it was the railroad.
Only the railroad allowed for the huge armies to be supplied at the front. While railroads were used in the American Civil War they were never extended and built so close to the front. The armies of WW1 used massive amounts of ordinance and men. Without the railroads the horses, mules and rudimentary motor vehicles would not have been able to keep modern armies in the field.

While that may be true, it was much more dramatically demonstrated during the Franco-Prussian war.

No, how about the Fokker Dr. I? Ruled the skies for germany for more than a year, IIRC.

But basically it didn't prevent the other side from still carrying out reconnaisance, it just basically caused the more of an effort to be made in building more scout planes.

 

[lupi]

A toss up between tanks and airplanes.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: techs
The Maxim machine gun desgin which was used by both sides.
Poison gas.
Aeroplanes.

However, if you want the invention that was the most necessary for WW1, according to Gen. John Pershing, it was the railroad.
Only the railroad allowed for the huge armies to be supplied at the front. While railroads were used in the American Civil War they were never extended and built so close to the front. The armies of WW1 used massive amounts of ordinance and men. Without the railroads the horses, mules and rudimentary motor vehicles would not have been able to keep modern armies in the field.

While that may be true, it was much more dramatically demonstrated during the Franco-Prussian war.

No, how about the Fokker Dr. I? Ruled the skies for germany for more than a year, IIRC.

Hmm, apparently, I was thinking about the fokker eindecker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_Eindecker

The Fokker Scourge was before the DR1, I'm too lazy to wikipedia it though.

 

[dennilfloss]

The superdreadnaughts, particularly the Queen Elizabeth class. Dreadnaughts were the most complicated machines at that time, kinda like the Apollo project of the time. So expensive and deadly that both sides were afraid to lose theirs and therefore used them in combat only with great reticence. For example, a decisive victory at sea during the Battle of The Skaggerrak (Jutland) could have won the war in one day for either side.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: nboy22

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The machine gun without a doubt.

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

why not check out the device used to allow the machine gun to fire through the propeller on airplanes?

 

[clamum]

I haven't read a ton about World War I so I'm no expert, but I'll go with the tank.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: lupi
A toss up between tanks and airplanes.

btw a little known fact, at least in America, is that not one American tank or airplane nor heavy artillery piece that was used in the war was made in America.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: lupi
A toss up between tanks and airplanes.

More men were killed by machine gun than tanks, airplanes and gas combined.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: nboy22

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
The machine gun without a doubt.

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

why not check out the device used to allow the machine gun to fire through the propeller on airplanes?

While interrupter gear gave the planes that had it a big advantage control of the air was only useful in reconnaisance. Bombing had virtually no effect on the battle. Scout planes were always able to get enough info on the enemy despite which side had the better fighters, so it wasn't a decisive, nor even very large advantage.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Dreadnoughts.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Dreadnoughts.

Actually, no one has mentioned submarines.
And submarines had a far greater effect on the war than the Dreadnoughts.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: lupi
A toss up between tanks and airplanes.

More men were killed by machine gun than tanks, airplanes and gas combined.

There were also more people killed in the american civil war by machine gun than tank or airplane.

 

[BeauJangles]

Modern artillery + the machine gun were responsible for most of the devastation of World War I. While all generals believed WW1 would be a fast-moving offensive war, these two weapons changed the face of battle and were responsible for the bloody and senseless battles of 1914-1916. They led to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war, which was not resolved until 1916-1917, when advances in technology and tactics finally caught up.

Artillery was responsible for the wave of military innovation in aviation. To make artillery barrages more accurate, both sides took to the air in balloons and airplanes. To defend their positions, they quickly learned to send aircraft into the sky to shoot down the enemy's spotting planes.

The machine gun not only changed the face of the war, but also was the catalyst for the invention of the tank. Tanks first appeared in 1916 as "machine gun killers." They had no other purpose other than to destroy enemy machine gun positions.

While railroads were extremely important, they also were not new by World War I and certainly were not new to the battlefield. The Prussians proved their effectiveness nearly forty years earlier in the Franco-Prussian War.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
The superdreadnaughts, particularly the Queen Elizabeth class. Dreadnaughts were the most complicated machines at that time, kinda like the Apollo project of the time. So expensive and deadly that both sides were afraid to lose theirs and therefore used them in combat only with great reticence. For example, a decisive victory at sea during the Battle of The Skaggerrak (Jutland) could have won the war in one day for either side.

i don't know about that. and decisive naval battles are extremely rare. in the last 300+ years there's trafalgar and tsushima and what else?

the battleship was obsolete as soon as dreadnaughts came about. too expensive to use in battle and too easily lost to submarines. submarines have been by far the most important piece of naval equipment for actually winning wars, followed by the airplane.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
The superdreadnaughts, particularly the Queen Elizabeth class. Dreadnaughts were the most complicated machines at that time, kinda like the Apollo project of the time. So expensive and deadly that both sides were afraid to lose theirs and therefore used them in combat only with great reticence. For example, a decisive victory at sea during the Battle of The Skaggerrak (Jutland) could have won the war in one day for either side.

As for naval vessels, uboats would be the lead there. Bigger and longer impact on warfare. The dreadnoughts quickly faded as an item to build due to limitations and lack of effect.