German Technological Failures During WW1

[Colin Williams]

Looking back through the Haig thread, I was reminded of the intense effort the French and British devoted to technical solutions to the stalemate of the western front. Many histories highlight the German failure to match Allied tanks in either quality or quantity, but it seems to me that the Germans failed to keep pace with the Allies just about across the board, particularly when one considers the technical lead the Germans had at the beginning of the war.

 

Examples -

Artillery - Starting with uniquely powerful and mobile siege artillery (partly thanks to the Austro-Hungarians) and howitzers, the most notable German artillery pieces introduced during the war were the long-range guns used to harass Paris to no particular military effect.

 

Mortars and trench guns - Again, the Germans started with an advantage but failed to match the Stokes mortar or the French 37mm trench gun.

 

Tanks - The story with these is well know. The A7V was a poor tank delivered too late and in too little quantity.

 

Machine Guns - The Germans never developed a true light MG or automatic rifle, a serious handicap for their stormtrooper units. Their development of an effective SMG had little value as most of the 30,000 manufactured arrived after the Spring offensives in 1918.

 

Gas - Here the Germans were truly innovative, taking advantage of their unequalled chemical industry, but their edge in gas warfare is the exception rather than the rule.

 

Flamethrowers - Another innovation but one of comparatively little value after the initial surprise effect.

 

Aircraft - This is a mixed story, with the Germans at times equally or surpassing the Allies and other times playing catch-up.

 

The unraveling German defenses at the end of the war are typically attributed to collapsing morale, declining numbers due to casualties and influenza, and hordes of fresh American troops. Isn't possible that the Germans were simply defeated by opposing forces with equivalent offensive doctrines and capabilities employing superior weaponry?

[KingSargent]

Machine Guns - The Germans never developed a true light MG or automatic rifle, a serious handicap for their stormtrooper units. Their development of an effective SMG had little value as most of the 30,000 manufactured arrived after the Spring offensives in 1918.

Actually they did - the Bergmann LMG; they just never used it on the Western Front. IIRC 30,000 were employed in Russia.

 

Aircraft - This is a mixed story, with the Germans at times equally or surpassing the Allies and other times playing catch-up.

Quality of aircraft fluctuated. Quantity was always on the Allied side. I believe that more Sopwiths alone were produced than the entire German WW1 a/c output. That requires examination and I don't feel like digging out my WW1 numbers data; in any case the Allies were way ahead of Germany in numbers after 1914.

[capt_starlight]

Would add Allied efforts:

 

Flash spotting and sound ranging together with field survey, creation of counter battery staffs, fire planning meant they always had the edge on German artillery (as well as eventually weight of numbers).

 

Livens projectors and their use for mass effect.

 

Gas applications such as lachrymotor and other gas grenades for clearing dugouts.

 

Counter-gas - the Small Box Respirator was far more efficient and longer lived active elements than the German equivalent.

 

For the Germans:

 

Efficient fuses (early war) for HE.

 

Signals intelligence - until the Western Allies created the Fullerphone.

[Colin Williams]

Machine Guns - The Germans never developed a true light MG or automatic rifle, a serious handicap for their stormtrooper units. Their development of an effective SMG had little value as most of the 30,000 manufactured arrived after the Spring offensives in 1918.

Actually they did - the Bergmann LMG; they just never used it on the Western Front. IIRC 30,000 were employed in Russia.

 

But they never really used the Bergmann's in quantity. I've seen numbers deployed as low as 5000 and comments about problems with jamming and overheating. By contrast the Germans manufactured about 80,000 MG08/15s over approximately the same period of time, but that was far from a "light" machine gun!

[John McGillivray]

Artillery - Starting with uniquely powerful and mobile siege artillery (partly thanks to the Austro-Hungarians) and howitzers, the most notable German artillery pieces introduced during the war were the long-range guns used to harass Paris to no particular military effect.

 

Artillery is much more than just the guns. It is an entire system from command and control, intelligence (counter battery), logistics and technical gunnery (including mapping, survey, calibration and met). The guns that the BEF used during the war did not change to any great extent; however, the system in which they operated in underwent a complete transformation. In both world wars the Germans failed to match the British advances in the gunnery system.

[KingSargent]

But they never really used the Bergmann's in quantity. I've seen numbers deployed as low as 5000 and comments about problems with jamming and overheating. By contrast the Germans manufactured about 80,000 MG08/15s over approximately the same period of time, but that was far from a "light" machine gun!

That's what I said. The gun was there, they didn't use it. It was aircooled, it probably overheated when they tried to use it like a watercooled Maxim.

[Nick Sumner]

The unraveling German defenses at the end of the war are typically attributed to collapsing morale, declining numbers due to casualties and influenza, and hordes of fresh American troops. Isn't possible that the Germans were simply defeated by opposing forces with equivalent offensive doctrines and capabilities employing superior weaponry?

 

FWIIW I think that is the story in a nutshell. I wouldn't say for a moment that the blockade and declining numbers had nothing to do with it, obviously they were crucial factors but the collapsing morale had a lot to do with the fact that the German army was simply overmatched by superior weapons and tactics.

[swerve]

FWIIW I think that is the story in a nutshell. I wouldn't say for a moment that the blockade and declining numbers had nothing to do with it, obviously they were crucial factors but the collapsing morale had a lot to do with the fact that the German army was simply overmatched by superior weapons and tactics.

 

IIRC, contemporary accounts are quite heavy on the shock German troops felt when they got into British & French trenches in March 1918 & discovered how much better fed & equipped they were than the Germans, & when they got into the rear areas, & found how much less France had suffered from the war than Germany. Well, where it hadn't been fought over, of course. The resulting demoralisation is widely attested. There are numerous accounts of German troops stopping to loot food, & being well aware of the implications of well-stocked shops in French towns & villages.

[Yama]

Artillery - Starting with uniquely powerful and mobile siege artillery (partly thanks to the Austro-Hungarians) and howitzers, the most notable German artillery pieces introduced during the war were the long-range guns used to harass Paris to no particular military effect.

 

Mortars and trench guns - Again, the Germans started with an advantage but failed to match the Stokes mortar or the French 37mm trench gun.

 

Tanks - The story with these is well know. The A7V was a poor tank delivered too late and in too little quantity.

 

Machine Guns - The Germans never developed a true light MG or automatic rifle, a serious handicap for their stormtrooper units. Their development of an effective SMG had little value as most of the 30,000 manufactured arrived after the Spring offensives in 1918.

 

Gas - Here the Germans were truly innovative, taking advantage of their unequalled chemical industry, but their edge in gas warfare is the exception rather than the rule.

 

Flamethrowers - Another innovation but one of comparatively little value after the initial surprise effect.

 

Aircraft - This is a mixed story, with the Germans at times equally or surpassing the Allies and other times playing catch-up.

 

The unraveling German defenses at the end of the war are typically attributed to collapsing morale, declining numbers due to casualties and influenza, and hordes of fresh American troops. Isn't possible that the Germans were simply defeated by opposing forces with equivalent offensive doctrines and capabilities employing superior weaponry?

 

I'm not sure I can agree with your presumption...tanks, yes, it in fact took about as long from Germans to develope serviceable tank than from Brits and French, they just started around 1.5 years later. British effort is noticeable that it produced useful design from the start, whereas first German and French tanks were abortive. German inactivity here seems indeed somewhat weird since they were presented a tank design already in 1911. Machine guns - granted, but OTOH, Chauchat was hardly a success story and Lewis was very heavy too. Nobody else was producing serviceable automatic rifles or submachineguns either so I'm not sure Germans were terribly at fault here.

 

Overall, it seems to me that the biggest failure for Germans were tanks, other than that it seems difficult to make a case that they fell behind technological curve: though perhaps it could be argued that they failed to keep their lead.

[Kensuke]

Machine Guns - The Germans never developed a true light MG or automatic rifle, a serious handicap for their stormtrooper units. Their development of an effective SMG had little value as most of the 30,000 manufactured arrived after the Spring offensives in 1918.

 

This keeps coming up, but as far as I'm concerned, everybody can be faulted here. The Americans especially. And the French for an LMG design that was crap. Only the British really got it right with the Lewis.

 

Germans were actually ahead of the game with the MP18. The only other SMG that I'm aware of was the Italian Villar-Perosa. They also had (arguably) the second best rifle of the war behind the SMLE (The Spingfield M1903 was really just a copy of the Mauser and there weren't enough to go around). The Lebel was long in the tooth.

 

- John

Edited September 26, 2007 by Kensuke

[capt_starlight]

This keeps coming up, but as far as I'm concerned, everybody can be faulted here. The Americans especially. And the French for an LMG design that was crap. Only the British really got it right with the Lewis.

 

Actually the Belgians adopted the Lewis ahead of the British. Was in low level production at FN and tooling up at BSA when the war started (convenient for the British). The Germans encountered it on their advance into Belgium and apparently nicknamed it the "Belgian Rattlesnake".

[Guest aevans]

Artillery is much more than just the guns. It is an entire system from command and control, intelligence (counter battery), logistics and technical gunnery (including mapping, survey, calibration and met). The guns that the BEF used during the war did not change to any great extent; however, the system in which they operated in underwent a complete transformation. In both world wars the Germans failed to match the British advances in the gunnery system.

 

This again. Just because the German artillery command and fire control system was different, that doesn't mean it was inferior. While the British were doing all sorts of neat scientific things with mapping/survey/ranging/etc., the Germans were going about their own scientific pursuits to improve their gunnery. They got to the point, for example, that they test fired individual guns in key units, keeping accurate data on deviation from the expected norm, so that pre-assault bombardment concentration was as tight as possible. Accorlding to Gudmundson's On Artillery, during WW II the Germans used electromechanical integrators in the field to calculate data for several batteries in coordinated missions. These methods were used by specialized artillery HQs that could coordinate the artillery of an entire corps, and on many operations where an artillery HQ wasn't available, they gave control of several divisons' artillery to one of the division artillery commanders, who was able and authorized as a matter of doctrine to coordinate the fires of all artillery in those divisions. While the British and the US eventually surpassed these capabilities, it was probably a matter of being different, not better, until at least the middle of 1943.

[Colin Williams]

This keeps coming up, but as far as I'm concerned, everybody can be faulted here. The Americans especially. And the French for an LMG design that was crap. Only the British really got it right with the Lewis.

 

Germans were actually ahead of the game with the MP18. The only other SMG that I'm aware of was the Italian Villar-Perosa. They also had (arguably) the second best rifle of the war behind the SMLE (The Spingfield M1903 was really just a copy of the Mauser and there weren't enough to go around). The Lebel was long in the tooth.

 

- John

 

Certainly the Americans failed to appreciate the skills of various MG designers before the war, but there's no faulting the BAR, which was just being deployed to the AEF as the war was winding down. Everyone says the Chauchat was crap, but that's an exaggeration affected by the failure of the Chauchats produced in .30 instead of 8mm Lebel. Although there were various issues with the gun that were noted by both the Americans and the French, it proved to be effective in action. Thousands were deployed, and I'm not aware of any units giving theirs back. I am aware of a number of French soldiers who won medals for heroism with the Chauchat.

 

Again, the MP18 was something useful, but again it wasn't available in quantity until the end of the war, by which time it was too late. There seem to have been some serious problems with the German industrial mobilzation and innovation in WW1, perhaps exacerbated by the fact that the High Command took too many skilled workers, engineers, etc. away from their jobs and put them in the trenches. Other combatants had similar issues but apparently realized their mistakes early on.

[Bob B]

The Germans did purchase some light Madsen machine guns and used them mainly in defensive positions. They first appeared in combat in the Champagne sector in September, 1915.

[KingSargent]

This keeps coming up, but as far as I'm concerned, everybody can be faulted here. The Americans especially. And the French for an LMG design that was crap. Only the British really got it right with the Lewis.

 

- John

When financial restrictions kept you to two MGs per bn, it made sense to have those MGs put out as much fire as possible (ie, be heavy and water-cooled). After all the politicians and bureaucrats didn't know one gun from another (nor did a lot of officers), so it didn't matter to the Budget Boys if you could get ten Lewises for the cost of one Vickers (an example, I CRS actual costs), you were going to get two per battalion. Period. EOS. No Others Need Apply.

[Kensuke]

Certainly the Americans failed to appreciate the skills of various MG designers before the war, but there's no faulting the BAR, which was just being deployed to the AEF as the war was winding down. Everyone says the Chauchat was crap, but that's an exaggeration affected by the failure of the Chauchats produced in .30 instead of 8mm Lebel. Although there were various issues with the gun that were noted by both the Americans and the French, it proved to be effective in action. Thousands were deployed, and I'm not aware of any units giving theirs back. I am aware of a number of French soldiers who won medals for heroism with the Chauchat.

 

We've been through this before (see the worst infantry weapons thread). The Chauchat was not just a poor weapon because it was re-chambered to .30-06. In fact, very few were. The majority remained in 8mm Lebel even when issued to the AEF. KingSargent more or less beat this topic to death. It was a good idea, but executed poorly. Not many units gave them back because there was nothing to replace it with. Though the USA at least started to adopt the Lewis side by side before the BAR was finally issued. The French made a new LMG a priority replacement item after WWI.

 

- John

Edited September 29, 2007 by Kensuke

[Shortround6]

More than one British or commenwealth soldier won medals using the PIAT. Doesn't mean it was a great anti-tank weapon.

 

I believe it shows more heroism, or skill or both, to use a peice of crap weapon while performing a deed that is out of the ordinary than by using a weapon clearly superior to what the enemy has.

[Colin Williams]

More than one British or commenwealth soldier won medals using the PIAT. Doesn't mean it was a great anti-tank weapon.

 

I believe it shows more heroism, or skill or both, to use a peice of crap weapon while performing a deed that is out of the ordinary than by using a weapon clearly superior to what the enemy has.

 

My point with respect to all these weapons (and I will try to keep this replicating the "worst infantry weapon" thread) is that there are shortcomings that prevent a weapon from doing the job and shortcomings that can be worked around. Histories that don't look at the details but simply repeat dismissive comments from other secondary sources don't necessarily reflect reality.