How WWI Supercharged Evolution of Military Technology [4K]

Рет қаралды 78,708

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 33

@ironfelixfromkuban2580 2 жыл бұрын

Most of the "novelties" of the First World War were developed even before it began. The British started working on tanks around 1911 and, unlike various initiatives in Austria-Hungary (Burshtyn, 1911), Russia (Koguenko, 1906), these works were funded. Before the start of the war, the Germans and Russians developed 420-mm and 406-mm howitzers capable of destroying the most powerful fortifications, the Russians were a couple of years behind the Germans at the beginning of the production of these guns, due to the outbreak of war, their production began only in 1917. The Austro-Hungarians and Russians began developing submachine guns at about the same time - in 1908. The idea that it was necessary to equip the army with fast all-terrain tractors appeared no later than 1913, the Russians wanted to completely equip light field artillery with 4.8-inch howitzers and 4.2-inch guns at the expense of tractors. In fact, it would be interesting to look at the development of weapons without the First World War in the 20s and 30s, most likely, the self-loading rifle would become the main weapon of the infantry, the 105-mm (Germany, France) would become the main guns of light field artillery ) and 122-mm (Russia) howitzers instead of 75-77 mm cannons, a submachine gun would become a hunting and police weapon, and tanks might not appear in the army at all until the mid-20s. At the same time, a developed tractor industry will appear in European countries not in the 1920s, but already in the 1910s, and by the middle or end of the 1920s, the possible productivity of tanks will be much greater than it was during the First World War. At the same time, Russia and Germany were expanding the production of ships, and they could already have enough armor production in the 1920s to make many tanks. Aviation had every chance to develop, including because the engineers were interested in the possibility of building passenger aircraft, and probably someone would have thought of using a converted airliner to carry bombs. Of course, development would take place in a general trend towards the weakening of the influence of Britain and France and the strengthening of the United States, Germany and especially Russia. Also, most likely, there would have been a very rapid growth in the production of the military industry, because equipping the army with self-loading rifles instead of bolt-action ones and increasing the number of machine guns would require several times more production of weapons and ammunition than in 1914. Artillery had to constantly become more powerful and heavier, while on the eve of the First World War, some countries seriously considered the need to increase the stock of shells several times compared to what it was in 1914, from ~ 1-1.7 thousand to ~ 3-4 thousand shells per gun, coupled with an increase in calibers, productivity should have increased by 5-10 times.

@larsrons7937 2 жыл бұрын

Great video, like several others I've seen. Also very good narration and interesting interviews. Hey, this is a good channel. It also has 1,3 mio. subscribers. Then _WHY_ has this video in over a month gotten no more than 52.500 views? And only 58 comments? Has the video got blocked or something?

@alganhar1 2 жыл бұрын

Elan of the Cavalry was pretty strong, particularly in Britain? The American Firearms expert has obviously never read the 1908 Cavalry Manual of the British Army that detailed the training of Cavalry, what they were expected to know, and what their expected role on the battlefield was. Three quarters of that manual was WORD FOR WORD the Infantry Field Manual of 1908. I can confirm this as I have copies of both. The British Cavalry was expected to be able to fight as well as the infantry dismounted. It undertook the same marksmanship tests and the same field tests. In other words, by 1914 British Cavalry were not being trained in the traditional manner as they were in the rest of Europe, they were being trained as Mounted INFANTRY. While their original roles of recon and tactical breakthrough was still expected to occur, they were primarily thought to be of most use as rapid moving mobile infantry who would ride to the combat area but deploy and fight on foot. Which was WHY the Cavalry had most of the Lewis Guns in British Inventory when the war started. It was thought to be the ideal machinegun for cavalry as it was more portable than the larger, heavier Maxim style Vickers Gun. There are pictures of early war British Cavalry carrying Lewis Guns, they were the only Cavalry in the world at the time armed with portable machineguns..... Even the British Infantry of 1914 fought in a manner utterly different to their European counterparts. British Infantry were trained to fight from the prone and behind cover. They were given considerable initiative, especially when it came to selecting their cover and moving to new cover if they were engaged (so long as they still maintained fire along their assigned sector). No other army in the world at the time fought like this. Not one. Far too many people seem to think the British Army had stayed much the same. But it had not. The Second Boer War had caused a huge shock, and had forced the Army to utterly rethink almost every aspect of the army and how it was deployed, how it fought, and how it was equipped. This led to the massive military reforms of 1908 that changed the British Army completely. Everything from its equipment to its tactics had been completely rethought and modernised to a far greater extent than any other army in the world at the time. Outside of the UK however the 1908 reforms are generally utterly ignored, despite the fact that the soldiers that fought in France in 1914 were ALL trained to the new methods and tactics. Including the Cavalry. Man for man the BEF was probably the finest army in the world in 1914. Its weakness was not in its training, or its equipment, but its numbers. It was TINY. Small armies suffer far worse from attrition than large armies. The losses the old pre war Regular Army suffered had all but wiped it out by mid 1915. By the end of 1914 for example, while the number of British Casualties appear light compared to the German and French (which by absolute numbers they were), the BEF had essentially suffered its ENTIRE rifle strength as casualties in the first 6 months of the war. Only by feeding in the limited Reservists, and by using Territorials to shore up the existing Regiments, and by bringing in elements of the Indian Army were they able to keep on fighting until the first of the New Armies started coming on line in early 1916. EDIT: Oh, and when comparing machinegun numbers of two armies its probably a good idea to compare the size of the armies in question for a more valuable comparison. Yes, the British Army had 250 Machineguns concentrated in the BEF (its Expeditionary component). The BEF numbered a little under 200,000 men, made up of four infantry Divisions and 2 Cavalry Divisions. In comparison the German Army mustered some 3 MILLION men on both fronts, with over 140 Divisions. So of COURSE they will have more machineguns, they have 15 times the men! Knowing the difference between the two armies sizes puts those machinegun numbers into a little thing called CONTEXT. British Battalions actually had as many Machineguns as German Battalions. The DIFFERENCE was that the British guns were concentrated into the Machinegun Company, and was a centralised force, while the German Guns were distributed amongst the companies as organic components of the Company. In that respect they had a superior system.

@larsrons7937 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for a very detailed and informative post. Mounted infantry, that is how Roman cavalry also (originally) fought. But the infantryman will never become obsolete.

@kirkstinson7316 2 жыл бұрын

The part on tanks is not entirely correct. The Germans learned quite quickly how to counter tanks with mobile anti tank gun units.

@alganhar1 2 жыл бұрын

To be fair they were mostly talking about the FIRST use of them, not the continued use, and they all made it clear when they were describing what the effects of that first use were. But then there are small liberties everywhere, like the intimation that only the Germans had worked out how to set up interlocking beaten zones with machineguns (they were not even the first, the Russians had worked it out during the Russo-Japanese War). Or comparing the early war British Machinegun inventory with the Germans, while neglecting to mention the early war German Army was some 3.5 million men on two fronts, compared to a little less than 200,000 men in the BEF during the same period. The Firearms Expert in particular really ought to have done his research better on the actual USE of some of those weapons. Perhaps reading the 1908 British Infantry and Cavalry Field Manuals may have been... illuminating to him, as by 1914 all British Cavalry were trained primarily as Mounted Infantry (a fact he appears unaware of).

@garrisonnichols807 2 жыл бұрын

@@alganhar1 actually there's detailed reports about the Battle of the Somme in 1916. It was the first time that the British used their new tanks in combat. Four were used but two were quickly destroyed by German artillery. The Germans weren't all that impressed with the new weapon and thought it was a waste of time. The German military built a few tanks of their own but never committed much resources to tank development instead focusing more attention to aircraft and submarines during world war one.

@tHefLLwuP Жыл бұрын

24:38 they’re doing donuts 😂

@mjonesmel 2 жыл бұрын

The depictions of British troops wearing Brodie helmets in 1914 are inaccurate; they weren't introduced until 1915.

@c_rock3512 28 күн бұрын

The soundtrack for this documentary is so odd. Something about a rock soundtrack overlayed onto a show about the most destructive weapons of WW1 is so off.

@noahwail2444 2 жыл бұрын

But no mention of the french75 mm fieldgun, that started it all, and no mention of the invention of smokeless powder, that made mashineguns possible? With black powder it would only have fired a few dusin rounds, before it was fauled up..

@PacoOtis 2 жыл бұрын

CORRECTION! It was the Germans "zero" 8 and NOT the "O" 8! Hey do your homework! LOL Great video and thanks for sharing!

@IB4UUB4ME 2 жыл бұрын

Was more like, ohhhh shiznit!

@larsrons7937 2 жыл бұрын

In British English you can say "O" as well as "zero" - they have the same meaning.

@hondatuner5156 2 жыл бұрын

"There should be a one year waiting period before you get a gun, and at the end of that year... you don't get a gun" -hayley smith

@alanrogers7090 2 жыл бұрын

Where the historian says that th efirst use of trench warfare was in France in 1914, doesn't know about the Confederate trenches built around Richmond, Virginia during the American Civil War. They were small cities compared to the trenches as depicted in these historical film clips.

@larsrons7937 2 жыл бұрын

In the 1600's and 1700's sieges of fortresses and towns trenches were used. In the early 1700's during a siege of a Danish fortress Swedish king Karl 12th was killed whilst inspecting the trenches.

@hottme4u06 7 ай бұрын

I think this is often not mentioned or even overlooked has more to do with the prominence of using trenches during the Great War. Yes, they had been used in previous wars, but not to the extent they had been in WWI, as I am sure you already know.