Why Is New Technology Important In World War 1
Asses the significance of new technology in influencing British victory in World War 1
‘No modern nation could fight for its life with its men in uniform only; it must mobilise.’1 In a sense this captures the significance of technology in influencing British victory in the First World War. ‘World War 1 is often depicted as a war of machines in which technology and science played a pivotal role’2 although it was not just the new technology in which significantly influenced British victory in World War 1, it is the development and evolving of older technology, such as the tank and machine guns as well as a change in the way war was fought. The nature of the fighting in World War 1 ‘represents a fundamental change in the nature of warfare’3 …show more content…
shifting from guerrilla warfare in the Boer War into total industrial warfare in the First World War. The industrial nature of the First World War meant it was almost entirely dependant on mass production, meaning that the home front played an increasingly pivotal role in influencing British victory in 1918. The tactics use in World War 1 were described as ‘all arms working together combining to overwhelm the enemy’4 this along with the leadership in the First World War also significantly impacted the outcome of World War 1.
The development of trench warfare in World War One had led to a stalemate, essentially due to the nature of the war being fought substantially differently to that of previous years, this meant that ‘man can be in the trenches for a year and not fire a shot’5.
Existing technology’s had caused the stalemate, and it became clear that there was to be development of new weapons and tactics in order to break the tedious stalemate that had arose, in essence ‘Trench warfare was determined by the technology available to the military’6. This led to the technological advance of chemical warfare, with the first attack using chlorine gas in 1915 by the Germans in Ypres, which in turn led to around 70,000 casualties. Mustard gas was later developed and described as a ‘demoralising new weapon.’7 However, gas was not a deciding factor in the First World War, as ‘neither side had a marked superiority’8 which is also backed up by the idea that gas ‘proved useful in allied advances in 1918 but even here they were little more than a minor addition to the major weapons of war’9 both sides used gas and its use was dependent on which way the wind was blowing, there was a high risk that soldiers would get it blown back in their face, as was found out by British troops in the Battle of Loos in 1915. It was also suggested that damage caused by gas nowhere near as damaging of that done by artillery and …show more content…
shells.
The previous use of barbed wire in the Boer War had proved successful to the extent that in World War One ‘thick rolls of razor sharp barbed wire 30 years deep held up the offensive.’10 The use of barbed wire combined with the development of the machine gun exacerbated the ongoing stalemate as it meant that if the opposition attempted to launch an attack across no man’s land troops would become entangled in barbed wire and would easily shot by the enemy side, therefore, neither side would leave their trench. ‘The mass artillery bombardment that characterised the First World War was mainly aimed at breaking enemy wire’11 Although barbed wire had a major impact on the stalemate in the First World War, it is arguable that the fear of getting bombarded with machine gun fire as well as fire from the likes of magazine rifles in which ‘a two man team could fire hundreds of rounds per minute’12 However, it is also due to the tactic of placing machine guns in highly favourable positions (where they remained mostly permanently) that enabled the machine gun to arguably be ‘the master of the battlefield’13 and leaving the ‘enduring image of World War One as the dominance of the machine gun.’14 This is further argued by the fact that 70% of casualty’s in World War 1 were from artillery fire.
The development of the tank was a highly significant factor which profoundly influenced British victory in World War 1, made clear in the Battle of Amiens, in which Britain used over 400 tanks of 3 different types of tank to gain an advantage over Germany; ‘Mother’, ‘Father’ and ‘Little Willie.’ The tank British Mark 1 was the first tank which was ‘born of the need to break the domination of trenches and machine guns over the battlefields of the Western Front.’15 Designed to resist small artillery fire and travel across trying terrain the development of the tank did give Britain and her allies a strong advantage over Germany; ‘At Amiens on 8 August 1918 British tanks were used and helped to achieve a significant breakthrough’16 this was mostly due to tactical misjudgements on Germanys behalf ‘the Germans were less convinced of their usefulness [tanks] and produced only 20.’17 This is due to the early British failure in battle with tanks; this failure was mostly due to the tactical error of not enough tanks entering battle, especially as they were not reliable in the early stages of development.
However, Germany regarded this early failure as a complete failure of the tanks, which essentially worked to the British advantage ‘the Germans dismissed tanks on the basis of their September 1916 experience on the Somme.’18 although the invention of the tank was a paradigm shift in technology which broke stalemate it was also due to the advancement in leadership skills which meant
that they were used effectively and alongside artillery fire as well as attack by air, it has been suggested that ‘mobility, lacking tactics for the previous three years in World War One, suddenly found a place on the battlefield’19 suggesting that tanks along with ‘all arms working together to overwhelm the enemy’20 which was managed by innovative leaders that essentially led to British victory in World War One.
The naval war was vital for Britain to remain in an advantage point, considering its vulnerability in being an island; ‘The British were conscience of the fact that they were dependent on sea for their survival’21 this meant an adoption of new tactics as well as advancing technology ‘The new weapons of naval war – mines, submarines and torpedoes - forced the British to abandon the traditional strategy of close blockade.’22 The development and use of the dreadnaught in the Battle of Jutland combined with the tactics deployed by Admiral John Jellico, creating a distant naval blockade around Germanys coastline succeeded in winning the battle and it has been argued that ‘the German Navy was never in a position again to put to sea during the war.’23 Although the Battle of Jutland was considered the only major naval battle in World War One German U-boats were used as an alternative to the use of the German naval fleet, as it was too weak ‘a victorious end to the war can only be achieved by using the U boats against the British trade’24 and in 1915 Germany declared a warzone ‘in which all merchant ships trading with Britain and its allies would be sunk’25 Consequentially, this meant that a US merchant ship was sunk, which therefore led to America entering World War One, which ‘revitalised allied efforts on the Western front in 1918’26 and could be argued was the deciding factor that led to British victory.
It is clear that advancements in technology greatly influenced British victory in World War One; technology such as the tank could be seen as determining factor for the British Victory of the First World War, not only did it mobilise the army and break stale mate, but also encouraged new and innovative leadership that had been lacking at the beginning of the war supported by the idea that ‘the British army under the guidance of its commanders made tremendous improvements, which they could only achieve after hard, bitter experience’27 this is further backed up with the idea that ‘In 1914 tactics had yet to catch up with the range and effectiveness of modern artillery and machine guns’28 However, tactics soon changed, such is in the Battle of Amiens 'Amiens demonstrated the extent of the military revolution that occurred on the Western Front… by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. '29 This would not have been a British victory without either technology or effective leadership which lead to a combined attack of the air, tanks and artillery. Although leadership was essentially what led to British victory (although it had been commented that the Western front was ‘led by donkeys’30) there would be no way the war could have been won with leadership and tactics alone, the advancements and impact of technology was fundamentally what led shift in leadership and tactics. In terms of weaponry and military technology World War One set the precedent for the way in which all future wars were fought.
Bibliography
Peter Browning The Changing Nature of Warfare, 2002
Vyvyen Brendon The First World War 1914-18, 2007
Neil Stewart The Changing Nature Of Warfare 1700-1945, 2001
John Horne A companion to World War 1, 2012
Martin Van Creveld The Changing Face of War, 2008 http://www.shmoop.com/wwi/science-technology.html Spencer C Tucker Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact
Dan Snow [presenter] ‘20th Century Battlefields’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/worldwarone/hq/wfront2_02.shtml Gary Sheffield The Western Front: Lions Led By Donkeys http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_jutland.htm Hew Strachan World War I: A History
George Forty & Jack Livesy The Complete Guide to Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles,2012
David Fletcher British Mark I Tank 1916, 2004
H. P. Wilmott World War One
‘No modern nation could fight for its life with its men in uniform only; it must mobilise.’1 In a sense this captures the significance of technology in influencing British victory in the First World War. ‘World War 1 is often depicted as a war of machines in which technology and science played a pivotal role’2 although it was not just the new technology in which significantly influenced British victory in World War 1, it is the development and evolving of older technology, such as the tank and machine guns as well as a change in the way war was fought. The nature of the fighting in World War 1 ‘represents a fundamental change in the nature of warfare’3 …show more content…
shifting from guerrilla warfare in the Boer War into total industrial warfare in the First World War. The industrial nature of the First World War meant it was almost entirely dependant on mass production, meaning that the home front played an increasingly pivotal role in influencing British victory in 1918. The tactics use in World War 1 were described as ‘all arms working together combining to overwhelm the enemy’4 this along with the leadership in the First World War also significantly impacted the outcome of World War 1.
The development of trench warfare in World War One had led to a stalemate, essentially due to the nature of the war being fought substantially differently to that of previous years, this meant that ‘man can be in the trenches for a year and not fire a shot’5.
Existing technology’s had caused the stalemate, and it became clear that there was to be development of new weapons and tactics in order to break the tedious stalemate that had arose, in essence ‘Trench warfare was determined by the technology available to the military’6. This led to the technological advance of chemical warfare, with the first attack using chlorine gas in 1915 by the Germans in Ypres, which in turn led to around 70,000 casualties. Mustard gas was later developed and described as a ‘demoralising new weapon.’7 However, gas was not a deciding factor in the First World War, as ‘neither side had a marked superiority’8 which is also backed up by the idea that gas ‘proved useful in allied advances in 1918 but even here they were little more than a minor addition to the major weapons of war’9 both sides used gas and its use was dependent on which way the wind was blowing, there was a high risk that soldiers would get it blown back in their face, as was found out by British troops in the Battle of Loos in 1915. It was also suggested that damage caused by gas nowhere near as damaging of that done by artillery and …show more content…
shells.
The previous use of barbed wire in the Boer War had proved successful to the extent that in World War One ‘thick rolls of razor sharp barbed wire 30 years deep held up the offensive.’10 The use of barbed wire combined with the development of the machine gun exacerbated the ongoing stalemate as it meant that if the opposition attempted to launch an attack across no man’s land troops would become entangled in barbed wire and would easily shot by the enemy side, therefore, neither side would leave their trench. ‘The mass artillery bombardment that characterised the First World War was mainly aimed at breaking enemy wire’11 Although barbed wire had a major impact on the stalemate in the First World War, it is arguable that the fear of getting bombarded with machine gun fire as well as fire from the likes of magazine rifles in which ‘a two man team could fire hundreds of rounds per minute’12 However, it is also due to the tactic of placing machine guns in highly favourable positions (where they remained mostly permanently) that enabled the machine gun to arguably be ‘the master of the battlefield’13 and leaving the ‘enduring image of World War One as the dominance of the machine gun.’14 This is further argued by the fact that 70% of casualty’s in World War 1 were from artillery fire.
The development of the tank was a highly significant factor which profoundly influenced British victory in World War 1, made clear in the Battle of Amiens, in which Britain used over 400 tanks of 3 different types of tank to gain an advantage over Germany; ‘Mother’, ‘Father’ and ‘Little Willie.’ The tank British Mark 1 was the first tank which was ‘born of the need to break the domination of trenches and machine guns over the battlefields of the Western Front.’15 Designed to resist small artillery fire and travel across trying terrain the development of the tank did give Britain and her allies a strong advantage over Germany; ‘At Amiens on 8 August 1918 British tanks were used and helped to achieve a significant breakthrough’16 this was mostly due to tactical misjudgements on Germanys behalf ‘the Germans were less convinced of their usefulness [tanks] and produced only 20.’17 This is due to the early British failure in battle with tanks; this failure was mostly due to the tactical error of not enough tanks entering battle, especially as they were not reliable in the early stages of development.
However, Germany regarded this early failure as a complete failure of the tanks, which essentially worked to the British advantage ‘the Germans dismissed tanks on the basis of their September 1916 experience on the Somme.’18 although the invention of the tank was a paradigm shift in technology which broke stalemate it was also due to the advancement in leadership skills which meant
that they were used effectively and alongside artillery fire as well as attack by air, it has been suggested that ‘mobility, lacking tactics for the previous three years in World War One, suddenly found a place on the battlefield’19 suggesting that tanks along with ‘all arms working together to overwhelm the enemy’20 which was managed by innovative leaders that essentially led to British victory in World War One.
The naval war was vital for Britain to remain in an advantage point, considering its vulnerability in being an island; ‘The British were conscience of the fact that they were dependent on sea for their survival’21 this meant an adoption of new tactics as well as advancing technology ‘The new weapons of naval war – mines, submarines and torpedoes - forced the British to abandon the traditional strategy of close blockade.’22 The development and use of the dreadnaught in the Battle of Jutland combined with the tactics deployed by Admiral John Jellico, creating a distant naval blockade around Germanys coastline succeeded in winning the battle and it has been argued that ‘the German Navy was never in a position again to put to sea during the war.’23 Although the Battle of Jutland was considered the only major naval battle in World War One German U-boats were used as an alternative to the use of the German naval fleet, as it was too weak ‘a victorious end to the war can only be achieved by using the U boats against the British trade’24 and in 1915 Germany declared a warzone ‘in which all merchant ships trading with Britain and its allies would be sunk’25 Consequentially, this meant that a US merchant ship was sunk, which therefore led to America entering World War One, which ‘revitalised allied efforts on the Western front in 1918’26 and could be argued was the deciding factor that led to British victory.
It is clear that advancements in technology greatly influenced British victory in World War One; technology such as the tank could be seen as determining factor for the British Victory of the First World War, not only did it mobilise the army and break stale mate, but also encouraged new and innovative leadership that had been lacking at the beginning of the war supported by the idea that ‘the British army under the guidance of its commanders made tremendous improvements, which they could only achieve after hard, bitter experience’27 this is further backed up with the idea that ‘In 1914 tactics had yet to catch up with the range and effectiveness of modern artillery and machine guns’28 However, tactics soon changed, such is in the Battle of Amiens 'Amiens demonstrated the extent of the military revolution that occurred on the Western Front… by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. '29 This would not have been a British victory without either technology or effective leadership which lead to a combined attack of the air, tanks and artillery. Although leadership was essentially what led to British victory (although it had been commented that the Western front was ‘led by donkeys’30) there would be no way the war could have been won with leadership and tactics alone, the advancements and impact of technology was fundamentally what led shift in leadership and tactics. In terms of weaponry and military technology World War One set the precedent for the way in which all future wars were fought.
Bibliography
Peter Browning The Changing Nature of Warfare, 2002
Vyvyen Brendon The First World War 1914-18, 2007
Neil Stewart The Changing Nature Of Warfare 1700-1945, 2001
John Horne A companion to World War 1, 2012
Martin Van Creveld The Changing Face of War, 2008 http://www.shmoop.com/wwi/science-technology.html Spencer C Tucker Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact
Dan Snow [presenter] ‘20th Century Battlefields’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/worldwarone/hq/wfront2_02.shtml Gary Sheffield The Western Front: Lions Led By Donkeys http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_jutland.htm Hew Strachan World War I: A History
George Forty & Jack Livesy The Complete Guide to Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles,2012
David Fletcher British Mark I Tank 1916, 2004
H. P. Wilmott World War One