Question

How did the new technologies of WWI affect soldiers fighting on the front lines? Please include at least three examples of new technologies in your answer.

Answer 1

The most important new technology affecting the First World War is generally considered to be the machine gun. While it was invented around the time of the American Civil War, it was only used extensively in the First World War.

The machine gun is a superb defensive weapon, the original death ray you could simply sweep in front of you to mow down all your attackers, from a distance much greater than they could get to you, and without much ability to aim or think clevelry about what you were doing. In the face of well-positioned and supplied machine gun, an infantry attack is essentially impossible, and attempts to make one lead to the kind of appalling slaughter that was, in fact, observed on the Western Front, particularly at places like Passchendaele, the Somme, and Gallipoli.

The effective countermeasure to the machine gun turned out to be the armored tank, which was invented in the First World War, but not used extensively until the Second. In an armored tank, you simply drive up to the machine gunner, proof against his bullets, and squish him. Then your infantry can advance. So this is why the Second World War was so different in character than the First.

It is also why another technological advance of the First World War, the use of poison gas, was not repeated in the Second. In the First War, poison gas was delivered to the opposing side either directly, from tanks, when the wind blew right, or in artillery shells. But gas is unpredictable, and there are many cases where it was misdelivered or blew back and caused more harm in its users. In the Second World War, with its more rapid movement of troops, it becames useless. Poison gas was to some extent a byproduct of the rapidly advancing chemical industry in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which found ways of making the stuff in large quantities, and safely handling it.

Another major technoloical advance that had a significant effect on the First World War was the submarine. This, too, was invented in the American Civil War but not developed effectively until the First World War, primarily by Germany. The "U boats" (from German Unterseeboot, "submarine") were extraordinarily dangerous to operate. I think fewer than 50% of crews of U-boats survived the war. But they could be extremely effective in two ways: first, a relatively cheap U-boat firing relatively cheap weapons (torpedos) could sneak up within range of a hugely expensive capital ship (battleship or cruiser) and sink her. Even if the U-boat was lost, this was a very advantageous trade for the attacker: one small U-boat and its crew, which could be replaced in a matter of months, for a great big battleship that took years to build. Additionally, U-boats could and did wreak havoc among commercial shipping, thus allowing a nation without a real blue-water navy (Germany) to institute an effective blockade against its enemies. Finally, the sinking of the USS Lusitania, an American liner, by a German U-boat in May 1915, with the loss of 128 American lives, including some wealthy and prominent Americans, is generally considered to be one of the factors impelling American entry into the war.

The effective answer to the U-boat turned out to be the destroyer armed with sonar, and the spotting airplane, both of which were deployed in the Second World War.

The airplane made its debut in warfar in the First World War, but had a fairly modest effect, as it was typically just used to aim artillery. In the Second World War, the airplane was the single most important new technology, and was the beginning of the proposition, still true today, that air superiority is the sine qua non of military victory.

One of the most surprising aspects of the First World War (to the combatants) was the fact that technology that had proved decisive in earlier wars, which was the blue-water navy, wasn't particularly important. The British were not able to successfully blockade Germany, in part for fear of German U-boats. There was only one major naval battle (the Battle of Jutland) and it was inconclusive, in part because neither commader wanted to go all-in and risk the entire destruction of the nation's fleet, which by that time represented a fantastic investment in time and money. Another reason is that the range of naval guns had exceeded the effective range of visual control, so good tactical command of a fleet engagement was difficult. The solution to this was radar and spotting airplanes, launched from an aircraft carrier, which hugely extended the eyes and ears of the admiral, but these were not available until the Second World War, when once again having a powerful blue-water navy became a decisive factor.