World War I Buffs

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

In the American Revolution even. :Q
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submarine)

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I would love to see a Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers quality movie about WWI.

The conditions just seem so much more horrible than any other war I've studied...I'd like to see how well a current director could translate that on screen.

A really fascinating read for you might be 'Tolkien and The Great War', which is a pretty moving portrait of the young author and his close friends.

As far as a good WWI film, pretty hard to come by. One that I rather liked was 'Gallipoli', an early Peter Weir film starring a very young Mel Gibson. It's a bit long, but if you're in the mood for a deliberate piece it's great. Another classic about that period is Lawrence of Arabia of course.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

For the most part this is true. There were a number of things used for the first time in a major conflict though.

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

The same arguments could be used for airplanes, but airplanes weren't packing much of a punch in those days. Mostly valuable for recon.

Machine guns and artillery had already been used in other conflicts, and although they were certainly the dominant means of killing the enemy and holding the lines for each side, I can't really single them out. It's pretty typical for a major conflict to see the use of newer/better guns/arty.

Right, gatling guns had been used by colonial empires against indigenous people and they'd be used sparing in actual wars. To dismiss the World War I machine gun is pretty silly, considering the beast that took the battlefield in WW1 was entirely like any other machine gun that had been fielded previously. In fact, the Maxim gun offered something that had never been seen on a European battlefield -- self-powered rapid-fire guns. These weapons didn't just "hold the line" or any other such nonsense, they dramatically changed the way the war had to be fought. Grand strategy had to be change due to this weapon and its new-found power.

The submarine also made a big splash in combat during World War I and, while the Germans had some success, the submarine ultimately failed to break the naval blockade that plagued Germany or to do crippling or long-term damage to the Royal Navy. Yes, they sank a lot of ships. At their peak, they were sinking ~2 ships per day. They ranged across the globe and triggered the First Battle of the Atlantic, but they ultimately lost that battle. Submarines might be one of the more interesting weapons deployed in WW1, but they are far from the most important. The original question wasn't about most important, but I feel that the conversation has definitely drifted that way.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I would love to see a Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers quality movie about WWI.

The conditions just seem so much more horrible than any other war I've studied...I'd like to see how well a current director could translate that on screen.

Passchendaele is pretty good.🙂

 

[iamwiz82]

All Quiet On the Western Front

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Tanks appeared late in the war and were mostly ineffective. Prior to the machine gun, he with the biggest guns won and the cavalry were the ultimate in mobile offensive units. Ships and planes certainly had an effect but, WW1 was primarily a land war and there has never been, then or now, a ship, plane, tank or, artillery shell that can hold and control a chunk of land. The infantry was the bottom line and machine guns forever changed how wars were fought.

And when the greatest machine gun ever was deployed for the following war, it's simply amazing we didn't see a return to trench warfare.

Perhaps you've heard of the Maginot line? In any case, I never said the machine gun was solely responsible for the changes in warfare, I only claim it to be the most influential.

that great line that was breached twice?

as for MG being the greatest WW1 innovation, the best design of that era didn't even see service in the field.

I took lupi's line about returning to trench warfare as sarcastic hence the reference to the Maginot line.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: TallBill

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.

Yeah, but planes spotting for artillery was a highly strategic combo that cant be overlooked. Also the use of wireless transmitters sending morse code to the batteries was new.

However, the wireless transmissions actually were quite useless due to the fragility of the radios and their limited range.
Telephone/telegraph cable was mostly used to communicate. Often buried deep to survive the artillery.
And of course no one made a usable air to ground radio during the war.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

The question, though is what is the most impressive piece of technology, which is very subjective. Still, impressive to me = impact and importance, and artillery and the machine gun were among the most impressive, and important pieces of technology in the war.

The submarine is a good #3, tanks and airplanes are probably #4 and 5.

And as I said before, artillery and MGs were in use in wars before this point and saw no real change in their use or effectiveness during this conflict.

Is it really that amazing? The success of the Spring Offensive showed that, even by 1918, trenches were reaching the end of their effectiveness. The advances made in technology in the 1920s made trenches a thing of the past.

No it wasn't, hence why I wrote it as such 😉

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

For the most part this is true. There were a number of things used for the first time in a major conflict though.

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

The same arguments could be used for airplanes, but airplanes weren't packing much of a punch in those days. Mostly valuable for recon.

Machine guns and artillery had already been used in other conflicts, and although they were certainly the dominant means of killing the enemy and holding the lines for each side, I can't really single them out. It's pretty typical for a major conflict to see the use of newer/better guns/arty.

Right, gatling guns had been used by colonial empires against indigenous people and they'd be used sparing in actual wars. To dismiss the World War I machine gun is pretty silly, considering the beast that took the battlefield in WW1 was entirely like any other machine gun that had been fielded previously. In fact, the Maxim gun offered something that had never been seen on a European battlefield -- self-powered rapid-fire guns. These weapons didn't just "hold the line" or any other such nonsense, they dramatically changed the way the war had to be fought. Grand strategy had to be change due to this weapon and its new-found power.

The submarine also made a big splash in combat during World War I and, while the Germans had some success, the submarine ultimately failed to break the naval blockade that plagued Germany or to do crippling or long-term damage to the Royal Navy. Yes, they sank a lot of ships. At their peak, they were sinking ~2 ships per day. They ranged across the globe and triggered the First Battle of the Atlantic, but they ultimately lost that battle. Submarines might be one of the more interesting weapons deployed in WW1, but they are far from the most important. The original question wasn't about most important, but I feel that the conversation has definitely drifted that way.

The one word most used by Gen. Pershing in his book on his experiences in the great war was "tonnage". Over a year into the war and only ONE American cargo ship had been built. The big question was whether there would be enough tonnage to move an American army to Europe and keep it supplied, while at the same time provide the resources that the French and British were using to build their war machines.
It was a close thing. If the Brits hadn't done much better against the U-Boats in the spring of 1918 the war might have been lost.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

For the most part this is true. There were a number of things used for the first time in a major conflict though.

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

The same arguments could be used for airplanes, but airplanes weren't packing much of a punch in those days. Mostly valuable for recon.

Machine guns and artillery had already been used in other conflicts, and although they were certainly the dominant means of killing the enemy and holding the lines for each side, I can't really single them out. It's pretty typical for a major conflict to see the use of newer/better guns/arty.

Right, gatling guns had been used by colonial empires against indigenous people and they'd be used sparing in actual wars. To dismiss the World War I machine gun is pretty silly, considering the beast that took the battlefield in WW1 was entirely like any other machine gun that had been fielded previously. In fact, the Maxim gun offered something that had never been seen on a European battlefield -- self-powered rapid-fire guns. These weapons didn't just "hold the line" or any other such nonsense, they dramatically changed the way the war had to be fought. Grand strategy had to be change due to this weapon and its new-found power.

The submarine also made a big splash in combat during World War I and, while the Germans had some success, the submarine ultimately failed to break the naval blockade that plagued Germany or to do crippling or long-term damage to the Royal Navy. Yes, they sank a lot of ships. At their peak, they were sinking ~2 ships per day. They ranged across the globe and triggered the First Battle of the Atlantic, but they ultimately lost that battle. Submarines might be one of the more interesting weapons deployed in WW1, but they are far from the most important. The original question wasn't about most important, but I feel that the conversation has definitely drifted that way.

I think mr. winston would disagree with you about those uboats.


and as far as an infantry weapon, the bar would be a much more impressive weapon to reach the field than the MG.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: nboy22

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

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

The Browning M2 was created in 1917, and is still in use by all 4 branches of the US military today, with no sign of being phased out as the heavy machine gun of choice.

As far as movies go, All Quiet on teh Western front is a classic. Lost Battalion was pretty good too. Not much to choose from as far as WWI movies go, unless you want to dig up a lot of black and white stuff.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: nboy22

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

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

The Browning M2 was created in 1917, and is still in use by all 4 branches of the US military today, with no sign of being phased out as the heavy machine gun of choice.

As far as movies go, All Quiet on teh Western front is a classic. Lost Battalion was pretty good too. Not much to choose from as far as WWI movies go, unless you want to dig up a lot of black and white stuff.

the M2 is being phased out, a new model is just entering service. As for WW1, the browning never made it over.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Everything used in the war was developed prior to the war.

For the most part this is true. There were a number of things used for the first time in a major conflict though.

I'd have to go with Uboats. Yes, submarines existed prior to WWI, and IIRC one was even used briefly in the US civil war. But there had never been a full naval effort at subs as a legitimate branch of a naval force. Subs have played a massive global role ever since.

The same arguments could be used for airplanes, but airplanes weren't packing much of a punch in those days. Mostly valuable for recon.

Machine guns and artillery had already been used in other conflicts, and although they were certainly the dominant means of killing the enemy and holding the lines for each side, I can't really single them out. It's pretty typical for a major conflict to see the use of newer/better guns/arty.

Right, gatling guns had been used by colonial empires against indigenous people and they'd be used sparing in actual wars. To dismiss the World War I machine gun is pretty silly, considering the beast that took the battlefield in WW1 was entirely like any other machine gun that had been fielded previously. In fact, the Maxim gun offered something that had never been seen on a European battlefield -- self-powered rapid-fire guns. These weapons didn't just "hold the line" or any other such nonsense, they dramatically changed the way the war had to be fought. Grand strategy had to be change due to this weapon and its new-found power.

The submarine also made a big splash in combat during World War I and, while the Germans had some success, the submarine ultimately failed to break the naval blockade that plagued Germany or to do crippling or long-term damage to the Royal Navy. Yes, they sank a lot of ships. At their peak, they were sinking ~2 ships per day. They ranged across the globe and triggered the First Battle of the Atlantic, but they ultimately lost that battle. Submarines might be one of the more interesting weapons deployed in WW1, but they are far from the most important. The original question wasn't about most important, but I feel that the conversation has definitely drifted that way.

I think mr. winston would disagree with you about those uboats.


and as far as an infantry weapon, the bar would be a much more impressive weapon to reach the field than the MG.

By 1918 mr. winston was, iirc, a Colonel commanding a trench.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: techs
By 1918 mr. winston was, iirc, a Colonel commanding a trench.

Do you make up your facts or just use really bad sources?

He was First Lord Of The Admiralty and is the man who put the troops on the beaches in Turkey to die by the thousands.

 

[Iron Woode]

Canada's National Archives has tons of awesome WWI footage.

A good series on this subject is For King and Empire: http://www.kingandempire.com/

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I would love to see a Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers quality movie about WWI.

The conditions just seem so much more horrible than any other war I've studied...I'd like to see how well a current director could translate that on screen.

WWI movie Passchendaele 🙂

Check it out.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: 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.

Artillery didn't peak as a weapon till WW2. There wasn't any real innovations with the weapon from the first go around, just that the countries had more of them and were able to group them better for simultaneous fire.

Take a look at the French 75: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...de_75_mod%C3%A8le_1897
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFygIJHnpq4#t=0m50s

Allowed for the artillery barrages of WW1 by their rapid fire capability.

I think most people have mentioned just about everything I can think of. Dreadnaughts, airplane with its innovations (interruptor gear, ailerons, etc.), machine guns, poison gas, railway guns (Paris gun), submarines, and tanks. I would only add the French 75 to the list.

EDIT: Stupid Gibson fella.

 

[RedArmy]

I can cast lvl. 5 Marksmanship and lvl.4 Shield of Protection but you'll have to wait for the cooldown on my health and speed buffs to expire.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: GasX

Originally posted by: techs
By 1918 mr. winston was, iirc, a Colonel commanding a trench.

Do you make up your facts or just use really bad sources?

He was First Lord Of The Admiralty and is the man who put the troops on the beaches in Turkey to die by the thousands.

Don't know much about history, do ya?

From Wikipedia and just about every book ever written on WW1:

Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of World War I, but was obliged to leave the war cabinet after the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli. He attempted to obtain a commission as a brigade commander, but settled for command of a battalion. After spending some time with the Grenadier Guards he was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding the 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, on 1 January 1916

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: GasX

Originally posted by: techs
By 1918 mr. winston was, iirc, a Colonel commanding a trench.

Do you make up your facts or just use really bad sources?

He was First Lord Of The Admiralty and is the man who put the troops on the beaches in Turkey to die by the thousands.

Don't know much about history, do ya?

From Wikipedia and just about every book ever written on WW1:

Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of World War I, but was obliged to leave the war cabinet after the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli. He attempted to obtain a commission as a brigade commander, but settled for command of a battalion. After spending some time with the Grenadier Guards he was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding the 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, on 1 January 1916

I stand corrected

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: GasX

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: GasX

Originally posted by: techs
By 1918 mr. winston was, iirc, a Colonel commanding a trench.

Do you make up your facts or just use really bad sources?

He was First Lord Of The Admiralty and is the man who put the troops on the beaches in Turkey to die by the thousands.

Don't know much about history, do ya?

From Wikipedia and just about every book ever written on WW1:

Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at the start of World War I, but was obliged to leave the war cabinet after the disastrous Battle of Gallipoli. He attempted to obtain a commission as a brigade commander, but settled for command of a battalion. After spending some time with the Grenadier Guards he was appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding the 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, on 1 January 1916

I stand corrected

I'm a big Churchill buff. Read all his books. And there are many.

 

[So]

I know the OP probably doesn't care any more, but it occurs to me, the most important technology in WWI was the Haber process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#History -- without it, Germany would simply have run out of bullets (well, cartridges) very quickly after the start of the war.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: nboy22

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

Is there a specific model that you find intriguing?

The Browning M2 was created in 1917, and is still in use by all 4 branches of the US military today, with no sign of being phased out as the heavy machine gun of choice.

As far as movies go, All Quiet on teh Western front is a classic. Lost Battalion was pretty good too. Not much to choose from as far as WWI movies go, unless you want to dig up a lot of black and white stuff.

the M2 is being phased out, a new model is just entering service. As for WW1, the browning never made it over.

Link? That would be news to me.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 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.

umm no.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: 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.

umm no.

Umm, yes.