Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

World War One Arms Race

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by The-Sarcasm-King (U13863808) on Sunday, 8th March 2009

  Hi guys, does anyone know anything about the WWI Arms Race? I'm currently writing an essay for History class and I can't find anything good.
  Cheers,
  Grace.

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Monday, 9th March 2009

  Hi Grace,
  
  You might want to look at the British and German naval rivalry following the launch of the 'dreadnought' class of battleships. Britain at that time had a rule that it's navy would be bigger than the next two biggest combined and the Germans pushed them. The Tangir Incident and the Agadir Crisis are also worth investigating - at the time they heightened fears and increased popular support for the arms race.

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Monday, 9th March 2009

  The thing about Dreadnoughts is often missed. By the 1890s frontline naval capital ships had thick seteel armour and big rifled guns that fired accurate shells, but they were slow and cumbersome, and mostly had to be pointed at the enemy to fire.
  
  The technological breakthrough was the steam-turbine, in may ways the first jet engines. They were much smaller, much more powerful and fuel-efficient than the earlier piston engines, meaning there was more room on board for bigger guns and enough spare power to put them into electric-steerable turrets.
  
  One Dreadnought could, in theory, pick off an entire fleet of pre-dreadnoughts who would find it very difficult to manoeuvre into firing position before the target had moved on. And so there was a massive effort to build as many of these new warships as possible.
  

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 9th March 2009

  Shipping was the key thing, but don't forget the land forces. Germany, traditionally a land power, spent a great deal to rival the French and Russian land forces.
  
  As Germany switched attention to the UK as an enemy they then found themselves spending on land AND sea forces.

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 9th March 2009

  Grace
  
  Some Key refs as to what has been discussed above - Admiral Tirpitz' so called 'Risk Theory Memo'. This catching the eye of the Kaiser whichh led to the 'Tirpitz plan' then the German Naval Laws or German Fleet acts.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by chrisramsfan1 (U13940531) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009

  You are right there JB-on-Sea, dreadnought was far superior to anything else. Having 10 x 12 inch guns aginst usually 4, but here is the clever bit in having a uniform secondary armament of 12 pounder guns (3 inch) against an array of anything from 10 inch to 6 inch. The idea behind this was at fighting ranges of say 15,000 yards a 12 inch shell splash is similar to a 10 inch or 9.2 inch shell splash, so you would know your fall of shot, in theary, did not happen at Jutland

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009

  You are right there JB-on-Sea, dreadnought was far superior to anything else. Having 10 x 12 inch guns aginst usually 4, but here is the clever bit in having a uniform secondary armament of 12 pounder guns (3 inch) against an array of anything from 10 inch to 6 inch.The idea behind this was at fighting ranges of say 15,000 yards a 12 inch shell splash is similar to a 10 inch or 9.2 inch shell splash, so you would know your fall of shot, in theary, did not happen at JutlandΒ 
  
  Its a bit more complicated than that. Up till the actual commencement of WW1 the RN practiced at way less than 15000 yards.Inded up to the point that "director" firing was instigated on HMS Thunderer the range was nearer 6000 yards.Indeed those who supported "director"firing had a hard time getting it introduced by a conservative navy.A trial was undertaken by HMS Thunderer (directed) and HMS Orion (un directed-local control) at around 8000 yards.Thunderer won hands down,but there was yet another twist in the tail.There were two designs,one private (Pollens) and one a RN rip off.Pollens was the superior sytem and was employed on HMS Queen Mary (which was known as a "crack"gunnery ship) but the RN went for the nominally home grown system which struggled to cope with rapid changes of course.At Jutland the Germans found the range quicker,the British found that they could "hold" the range better.But you have to rmember that niether navy up till WW1 had fought at 15000 yards + and either with the "Director" system tou still relied on the "Mk 1 eyeball".
  
  Up till "Dreadnought" Battleships had mixed calibre armaments,The "Royal Sovereign" set the pace with 4 x 13.5 and a multitude of 6 inch guns,the follow up classes with (4x12 inch guns)carried on with this typical armament until the "King Edwards" with 4x 12 inch and 4x 9.2 and finally the "Lord Nelson" class with 4x 12 inch and 10 x 9.2 ich.So a move to a more uniform armament was underway.Other navies were also moving towards a more uniform main battery such as the US and Japanese navies and an Italian chap called Cunebetti(?) claimed that the "ideal"RN vessel would carry 12x12inch and have a top speed of 23 knots.The final nail in the coffin of the pre-dreadnoughts was Tsushima.
  
  At Tsushima as you said the the multitude of different calibres made it dificult to spot shell splashes(and remeber this was at short range!),it was also noted that the real arbitors of destruction were the 12inch guns and he smaller calibres were considered peashooters.The RN had an attache present on the MikasaJap flagship) and his findings were reported back to the Admiralty.When you take all of these factors into account you see the genesis of "Dreadnought".
  
  The brilliance of "Dreadnought" wasnt just her guns (which were nicked from the Lord Nelsons")it was also her turbine engines.Up till the the engine of choice was the "Triple expansion" engine,a known quantity,but an engine which needed constant fettling and struggled to run at full speed without risking running bearings and damage and 18/19knots was about the best RN battleships got.Dreadnoughts turbines produced 21knots for long periods,without the constant fettling,were quieter and cleaner.But it was a huge gambleIndeed such was the suspicion that when the RN annouced that the officers would have there mess decks forwrd and the ratings aft (the reverse of the traditional) the ratings suspected that it was due to excessive vibration from the turbines and the risk of the plant exploding!
  
  Vf

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 30th April 2009

  It's all been said as far as the Dreadnought Race is oncerned, but you need to factor in the rise of aircraft - seen as spotters until the outbrak of war - the rise of fighters and bombers was barely presaged pre-1914 - and also you need to consider the progress being made with submarines, and surface torpedo craft.

  Link to this forum: World War One Arms Race

  Report message8

Back to top