Were Weapons Of WW1 Used Successfully
Posted: Sunday, March 01, 2009
by Connor Davidson
My Books and Articles (under construction)
I am compiling this essay to attempt to answer the question of whether the weapons used in world war one (WW1) were used successfully.
It is obvious that the weapons must have been used successfully to a degree, this is derived from the knowledge that WW1 was a fiercely technological war. It is also obvious that WW1 was a new type of war; it saw the decline of use of cavalry and the introduction of the horrific trench warfare. I will look at each technology individually and give my oppinion.
Barbed wire: although difficult and dangerous to lay, it was successful because it held the attacker. As it took time for both sides to learn how to penetrate the barbed wire. Barbed wire although successful was only one of many obstacles faced to get through the trench lines .
Artillery: firstly was not successful, because they did not obliterate the trenches and destroy the barb wire as was previously thought they would. It was only later with the invention of the rolling artilliary barrage that artillery was successful. Although if the men failed to keep up with the barrage, it could all turn into an unmitigated disaster. Like at the Somme where the soldiers were half way there when the barage bassed over the German lines.So during the war it can be said that artillery was in some respects overestimated as it failed to destroy the barrbed wire or kill many Germans as they were often underground.
Poison gas: really poison gas was not all that successful because it was swiftly counteracted with gas masks. Poison gas could have had devastating effects if used in huge volumes, with the potential of overwhelming all of once sides' trench population in one shot. All taken into account poison gas was potentially dangerous not only to the enemy but to yourself if the wind chose to change direction and if truth be told a questionable use of a revolutionary weapon. There was one huge oversight that made gas unsuccessful this is that canisters could have been dropped by aircraft in huge volumes behind the enemy lines so no matter which direction the wind blew it hurt the enemy.
Tanks: Churchill's great master plan to win at the western front and redeem himself from his last master plan in the east. Primitive as they were (comparatively speaking) they were successful, with there limitations though. These great monsters were woefully unreliably and they were little faster than walking speed. Nevertheless they were brilliant; this was the machine which was a contributing factor to the allies winning the war. Immagine the pyscological effect to Germans who had never seen a car before. Consequently there is no doubt in my mind that this weapon was successful.
Aircraft: they began life used predominantly for reconnaissance but as the war diversified was used to shoot down balloons or to gun down enemy planes - which were also spying. These were again not without there limitations, they were made of balsa wood and were hence liable to combust. The average life span of a pilot and consequently his plane was; two weeks. On the whole aircraft was a necessity and was successful at its job, even though it was riddled with limitations.
Mines: these were highly successful as these caused tremendous amounts of damage to the enemy trenches. I have personally visited many craters left by mines and one can never appreciate it untill they have seen it.
Snipers: not only were they successful at killing enemy soldiers (mainly officers), they also had the effect of keeping soldiers alert which is most certainly a useful weapon in itself. Most snipers were game keepers.
I now draw the conclusion that the weapons of world war one were successfully utilised. As with all new technologies and concepts there is initial trepidation and many technologies were not used to there full potential but that is to be expected.
Connor Davidson 3/1/09
This Article has been viewed 2,612 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Hi Connor, welcome to searchwarp. This is a very interesting article. Thank you for sharing this bit of history. I am looking forward to reading more from you. I just have a few recommendations. Going back to edit your typo's, and you might consider rewording the paragraph under "aircraft". I reread it several times, and I still can't catch the flow of what you are trying to say. "They began life used.." doesn't make sense. Are you trying to say that the initial use of aircraft was for reconnaissance? I hope you don't mind me asking. As a fellow writer, I find it helpful when others give me some advice. Keep writing, this is good stuff. Blessings to you!Please log in to respond to this comment.
Your article had some interesting information, however, I had a hard time getting through it. I am new to search warp and one of the helpful tips I received and have since heeded is that maybe you could do something less wordy and more to the point. Keep writing. You will find encouraging wonderful people on Search Warp. Regards, Linda DPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Despite being a bit confusing grammar rise, it was a brilliant article.Thank you for helping me learn more about history and the first world war.Please log in to respond to this comment.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.