Technology in Warfare

Advancements helpful, but not key to success

Without question, technology has evolved over time, and with it has come the dawn of a new age of advancements in weaponry. From World War I on, there have been improvements in all facets of warfare and weaponry, as well as strategy. It started in World War I with the use of the machine gun, artillery, grenades, biological warfare in the form of mustard gas, as well as the use of snipers and repeating rifles. These advancements resulted in a higher casualty rate, and the spread of disease as well as the terrain only added to this fact. Overall, the advancements in weaponry made soldiers work easier, but also deadlier, and also may have forced them to traverse otherwise impossible routs to attack the enemy with superior fire power.

World War I saw the dawn of the utilization of all kinds of advancements in battlefield technology. I would argue that these advancements were ahead of the strategy and tactics behind using them, which is why the war turned into trench warfare. The increased accuracy of the rifles, such as the German Mauser, and the American Springfield, made a soldiers job easier but also more deadly. Not only were the rifles more accurate, but they could fire in repetition, and had enough velocity and force to kill a man some 200 yards away. "The tendency when firing in the dark is to fire high with the result that the majority of the bullets go fringing over the trenches, maybe to find a victim two thousand yards behind; many men get killed in this fashion." (Fraser) This forced both sides to fire cautiously from the cover of their trenches. Another innovation was the increased use and accuracy of artillery fire, which again forced both sides to take cover in their trenches. The improved technology on the battlefield had made open ground suicidal to take, and both sides were more or less stuck in a stand off.

It would be nearly the end of the war before either side could really figure out a way to traverse "no-mans-land". The invention of the mechanized tank provided some cover for a soldier or two to cross with some protection. It was outfitted with just enough armor to stop most small arms fire, but for experienced artillery teams, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. The slow and clumsy tanks could only manage trudging along at a dismal two or three miles per hour, which gave artillery teams more than enough time to zero in on their cumbersome target. Not only were they slow, but they also lacked a good exhaust system, so much of the fumes wound up filling the cockpit with smoke and exhaust.

World War I became a war of attrition, in which the winner would be the side that was able to keep up the fire, with manpower and supplies. While advancements in weaponry helped make each soldier a more effective killing machine, the same could be said for their opponents and it would take a few