Canvassing views as to which nation better developed and utilised technology during the Great War.

For example France could be said to have produced and utilised the Field Gun most effectively, whilst Germany were the first to manufacture planes with an interruptor gear. Britain produced the first tank.

Which countries should be credited with which technological advances?

Thanks and regards,

Jon S

Part of the answer will be to understand the technological position of each player before the war began. For example, Germany had an advanced chemicals and dyestuffs industry and an advanced optics industry in 1914: neither France or Britain did. Britain had to build its armaments chemicals industry from a very low base yet by 1918 was outproducing Germany. France had a significant aircraft engine industry in 1914. By 1918 Britain had, if I remember correctly, overtaken France in terms of output. The industrial position and development of the nations must be a major factor in who invented what.

I think it may be fairly safe to assume that the first country to field a device or technology were the inventors or discoverers. All other considerations aside, the fact that Britain went from a standing start in 1914 shows a prodigious adaptibility. To go from, more or less, Boer War artillery to the overwhelming superiority of late 1918 was a major factor in the successes of the 100 days.

Would be interested to hear the state of development of radio in the German forces. Both sides used it widely but I have been unable to find out much about the German side. Radio waves were first demonstrated by the German scientist Heinrich Hertz, but the Italian Marconi working in Britain made it practically possible. Perhaps this gave British the edge. Radio (direction finding) was responsible for detecting the movement out to sea of the German fleet on 30th October 1916, is said to have helped silenced 70 enemy batteries in the battle of Messines (RE ground stations working in conjunction with spotter planes equiped with radio), by November 1918 the RAF had 600 planes fitted with radio working in conjunction with 1000 ground stations. The development of this technology was remarkable, from heavy low powered spark transmitters to 2-way valve voice radio introduced in 1917. Which other invention, who's development was accelerated by war has had such an influence on our lives today? (OK, I've only owned a mobile phone for 8 months, honest!)

Good points made so far for which i am grateful. I hope some Radio Hams can develop the use of wireless transmission ... might be worth a thread of its own to attract the right people.

As an ex signaller, I am a SWL and am interested in early use of wireless.

The really startling thing about wireless for me, is the widespread use by Russian forces, considering how much Russia lagged the European technology in almost every field. The defeat at the Masurian Lakes is sometimes attributed to Russian officers transmitting in clear. So, we can deduce that very early in the war, Russia was using wireless on a routine basis and German forces were intercepting the transmissions.

Another question is who had the better submarines? I've just been reading Submarines versus U-boats by Geoffrey P. Jones. It deals with WW2 situations where submarines were sunk by U-boat or vice-versa. However he does mentions that 18 British subs were sunk by U-boat and 19 U-boats sunk by British submarines in WW1. Quite a difficult feat in any circumstances. The corresponding figures fow WW2 were 3 and 15 respectively. Some of the later U-boats built or planned in Germany towards the end of WW2 were formidable opponents and would have caused serious worries for the allies if they entered service (and some were used into the 1950s by British, French and American navies). It's probably fortunate (for us) that Doenitz was not a Nazi, but thats another story, off-topic. So who had the better subs in WW1?

This doesn't just have to be about weaponary though, there were other advances in technology that undoubtably lengthened the war.

How about the advances in canning that allowed food to be preserved, and thus allowed men to fight for longer as they could be properly supplied without food going off.

Advances in medicine and surgery that allowed wounds that would previously have resulted in certain death.

Advances in photography and mapping, wireless, aeroplanes......the list is endless.

On Friday, 10th September, 1915 Sir Douglas Haig observed an experiment with "..some small wireless sets for use during the attack towards Pont a Vendin to connect the leading divisions (or brigades) with Corps HQ when artillery shells render ordinary telegraph lines impossible. The range is 4 to 8 miles..."

Anyone know if they were included in the attack and did they work? I guess not.

I am afraid not. I know that in 1917, what was known as a trench set, was so big and clumsy that a party of at least 3 men were required to move it. The sets of the day were essentially big spark plugs and non-directional. They relied on raw power to attain any range. Lovely big handcrafted wooden cabinets. Powered by a thing like a lorry battery.

They weren't a great deal smaller in the 50's. A 62 set had me with the set and a rifleman with the lead acid battery in a steel case, connected to my set by a metre of flex. Great fun at night trying to keep up with the officer struggling under the weight of his binoculars and mapcase.

Intriguing, then, to think what Haig had seen in 1915. Was it too cumbersome? Too fragile? Note that it was intended for Division - Corps communications: it was obviously not a trench set!

Without getting too technical, it was probably a ' continuous wave' set. Nearer to what we would think of as a radio and eventually capable of RT as opposed to WT. WT (wireless telegraphy= morse) , ( RT Radio Telephony = voice). It was probably the electronics letting it down at that stage of development. The power buzzer was very robust and easy to set up. It took away the desperate need which might have forced the development at a faster pace.

Division-Corps communication was like this, using spark WT systems, so no not a trench set. There were also power buzzers (using earth currents) in the forward positions.

I do apologise if this thread seems to be taking off at a tangent but I find this quite interesting. It is something I have never considered before. I knew that contact between companies, battalions and brigade were usually very quickly lost and runners were employed. It surprises me slightly that buried telephone lines between Divisional HQ and Corps HQ might be expected to be cut by shell fire. I wonder what rate of shell fall there was between these HQs? Anyone hazard a guess?

I have a rough idea about buzzers and fullerphones but the total sum of my knowledge of radio technology is that it is necessary to let the valves warm up before you can get a clear signal from Hilversum.

Not at all ... keep going. The communications info is very interesting.

On the issue of the original question, my belief is that the Allies were far more advanced from a technological perspective in 1918 than the Central Powers, my intention was to pose a question that would provide a conclusion as to whether the Allies were more advanced and why.

I suspect that Div HQ would get special attention from long range artillery. The cables would be collateral damage as we would say now. The fullerphone was an answer to the weakness of the buzzer. It was more secure. Any one with a headset and a big nail could listen into earth return.

I'll let you into a closely guarded military secret. If you are up a tree in pouring rain with your climbing irons well sunk into a soaking wet trunk and the excess moisture escaping via the seat of your trousers, and you are attempting to repair a break in a cable and one of the signallers at one of the ends decides to test the phone to see if you have fixed it yet, when he turns the little handle to ring up the other end, you will shout rude words and fall out of the tree. But don't tell anyone who told you that.

I'd pay good money for a photie!

Such a thing would be on You Tube before you could say 'The Great War Forum'.

Keith

The only tubes in those days were in tyres and TVs.

And wireless wasnt a type of network.

Keith

Weeeeelllllll......actually, our wirelesses did operate in nets.

Oh yes it was!

I don't wish to pour cold water the communications aspect, which absoloutely vital but can we develop this further. How about sound ranging, which used what might be called nowadays "cutting edge technology", in conjunction with ariel photography, which, by 1918, bring down rapd counter battery fire on a on enemy position. Perhaps we could explore the advances in medical technology, the development of artillery and infantry weapon technology, not forgetting that t was technological developments that amn impact on tactics.

Small words , big implicatons.

Terry Reeves

Although blood transfusions had been tried pre-war, it was in Argentina in 1914 that Professor L. Agote discovered that sodium citrate would stop the donated blood from clotting. The RAMC first used transfusions on the Western Front in 1917, introduced by Oswald Robertson.
Before this, the tubes used to collect blood had to be coated in paraffin wax, and the donor often had to lie alongside the patient, with a tube going directly between artery and vein. It caused so much damage to the donor's arm that they could only give twice, and it was impossible to know whether clotting had blocked the tube, or how much blood had been passed from one to the other.
There's a detailed description here http://www.vlib.us/medical/transfusion/methods.htm but it's not for the squeamish.

I think I would have preferred infantry to RAMC

I have read a description of the sound ranging which was extremely complicated. Very intricate machinery requiring very precise setup but the results were amazingly accurate. Surprisingly, it utilised film recording techniques. I have not yet seen a description of how flash ranging was done but presumably it operated at night. I hate unreferenced quotes but as far as medical advance goes, I read somewhere, ( how I hate that phrase) that surgeons referred back to pre-anaesthetic surgery practise for swift amputation in forward positions. So, a regression in a way, rather than an advance.

A bit more radio history, OK for the squeamish, only one arm ripped off by a whiz-bang:

http://earlyradiohistory.us/1917trn.htm

Well, that ought to be 'armless enough.

I hope it was not the one he used for the 'brass pounder'!

The RE had come a long way from having about 6 lorry mounted spark sets in August 1914 to setting up extensive networks even by 1916.

I have not been able to trace any reference to the system demonstrated to Haig, but there is a reference to the first spoken message from aeroplane to ground at the RFC experimental section, at the Wireless School, Brooklands in the summer of 1916. Later demonstrated to Kitchener at St Omer. (regular telephony between machines was not in use until late 1917).

From the paper "W/T, RE" by Captain B. F. J. Schonland, written July 1919:

"In the captured report of the Somme operations by General von Arnim, the report in which he contrasts our excellent fighting equipment with that of his own troops, he particularly asked that small portable trench wireless stations, such as we had used, should be quickly provided for him. That this was done was evident to us a few months later, when the familiar Telefunken trench-sets began "U-M"ing all along the line"

("UM" is a morse code abbreviation for "Umschalter" - switch (over) to pass control from one station to another)

It seems that the RE did lead the field in wireless communications in battle situations.

Also begs the question what is the captured report written by General von Arnim? How? where? Anyone heard of this?