Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Technologies impact on western warfare?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Jamie (U14300564) on Friday, 15th January 2010
Hi
I'm trying to think of how technology, either military or civilian has restricted the evolution of Western Warfare?
Any help would be great.
Robi -
Message 2
Posted by Matt (U14300373) on Friday, 15th January 2010
The lack of invisibility cloaks has been a real problem in modern warfare :o)
Generally speaking the West (particularly Europe) has harnessed new technology for military use very quicky (e.g. new metals, gunpowder, stirrups, planes, trains and automobiles) and caused that technology to move on quickly (aeroplanes in world war one for example, or computers).
Is that any help? Or you were thinking about times when technology, or lack of it, has caused specific problems in warfare? -
Message 3
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Friday, 15th January 2010
"The lack of invisibility cloaks has been a real problem in modern warfare..."
You jest, Matt, but it was failed experiments into Flash Gordon style Death-Rays that came up with Radar.
The most serious example of technology failing to meet the expectations of top brass and politicians is the sorry tale of Anti-Ballistic Missile systems which can never be trusted because you can never test them in real life against a mass attack without making the other side think you are planning a first strike. -
Message 4
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 16th January 2010
Well, an example of technology getting in the way of efficient warfare is the cyclic lightweight-heavyweight design pattern... It works as follows, for any item X -- X might be a ancient Greek foot soldier, a modern jet aircraft, a tank, a knight in armour, a warship, almost anything really... Let's make our X an infantryman of the classic age.
1. Soldiers of type X are very useful.
2. However, a longer spear would be more effective, and it only weighs a few pounds more.
3. To counter enemy archers, let us make his shield bigger. It only adds a few pounds, and it might save men's lives.
4. A sturdier helmet would be nice, too. And greaves, of course.
5. Actually, this long spear is too unwieldy for close combat. Let's make our men carry a sword, too, so they have another option.
6. Talking about close combat, how about some body armour? I know it weighs a lot, but with their heavy spear, shield, helmet, and sword, our men are not going to run anyway.
7. Carrying all that stuff in hot weather makes men sweat. We can order all of them to carry an extra flask of water.
8. Let's add some brightly coloured plumes to the shiny armour, it look impressive on parades.
9. We now have excellent heavy infantry, but sadly, they get exhausted quickly and are not as agile as they should be. Let us hire some light infantry to complement them.
10. Say, this light infantry is really very, very useful.
11. Start over at 1. -
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
JB, a thought ran through my head. Back in the 80s, a number of companies sprang up selling bomb/fallout shelters. Now the only way you would know if they worked would be if WWW3 started, and if they didn't!!!!!!!! How do you get your money back.
GF -
Message 6
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
...Which reminds me, Fred, of "Protect & Survive," the offical advice from the UK govt. for 'surviving' a nuclear strike, which included details of how to defend yourself against Nuclear flash, when anyone in range of the flash would be hit by the blast and turned to dust a few seconds later.
-
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
JB
Flash could ignite fabrics inside buildings that were beyond the "complete destruction" radius of blast, so the instructions were not worthless.
The effects of a nuclear detonation are rarely properly explained.
LW -
Message 8
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 17th January 2010
Jamie
A couple of examples where technology has provided limitation:
The problems of computing an intercept trajectory quickly enough for a successful engagement - in effect a problem of computer processing power - has been a limitation on anti-ballistic missile defence since 1944.
The inability to produce a powertrain capable of either supporting a amin battle tank over any terrain, or allowing an attack helicopter to carry MBT-levels of protection has prevented the "Tank Fleet" concept of armoured warfare espoused by Fuller, Hobart and contemporaries ever becoming a reality.
On the other hand, the development of electronic mass communication, radio, television and especially the internet, has prevented modern states from achieving complete information control over military operations, which has constrained, to a greater or lesser extent, the conduct of those operations.
Cheers
LW
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.