| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The War and Science
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The War and Science

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The War and Science
    Posted: 15 Jan 2014 at 08:48
From the beginning of human civilisations, the human endeavour to conquer,
For conquest, the best possible armament was required. At the beginning, the fire sharpened stick was adequate but soon it was refined by adding stone tips later replaced with bronze and iron.
The simple bow was refined and excellent composite bow and crossbow were introduced. such transformations and inventions were at cutting edge of contemporary technology and were a potent propulsion of technological development..
I would like to discuss the influence of Science on progress of art of war,
The Greek Fire was one of the best kept secret of Byzantine Empire and its use in battles give Byzantium mastery of Eastern Mediterranean Sea for long time. But finally, the secret was stolen and other armies and fleets used it successively in battles. This knowledge could make a difference between victory and defeat.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2014 at 12:56
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

From the beginning of human civilisations, the human endeavour to conquer,
For conquest, the best possible armament was required. At the beginning, the fire sharpened stick was adequate but soon it was refined by adding stone tips later replaced with bronze and iron.
The simple bow was refined and excellent composite bow and crossbow were introduced. such transformations and inventions were at cutting edge of contemporary technology and were a potent propulsion of technological development..
I would like to discuss the influence of Science on progress of art of war,
The Greek Fire was one of the best kept secret of Byzantine Empire and its use in battles give Byzantium mastery of Eastern Mediterranean Sea for long time. But finally, the secret was stolen and other armies and fleets used it successively in battles. This knowledge could make a difference between victory and defeat.
One question to ask is wether the greatest stimulus to innovations in the military area, both technological, tactical and other, will be in a longer perspective. Will it be great empires, much larger and more powerfull than their rivals or a region with smaller, comparable rivalling powers? Two regions of about same size could be Europe and China or Europe with one large Empire vs. divided Europe or two other regions.
Since the situation were more than one power are "great" increases both risaks and potential gains, I wonder if that is not more stimulating than the "big empire vs. smaller "barbarians" situation.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2014 at 23:40
difficult to say but history is teaching us that the political balance is changing periodically and great alternations to regional/world supremacy is in permanent motion.
In the previous era, same military and commercial inventions could be kept in secret for long time. I mentioned before the Greek Fire which was in exclusive possession of Byzantine Empire for around 200 years.
It was probably invented by Callinicus of Heliopolis at the second half of 7 Century but historical record shows that it was in possession of Moorish Fleet in 861 when in Gibraltar strait Moors routed the marauding Swedish Viking fleet(under command of Hastein and Bjorn Ironside) sinking 40 out of 60 Viking Dragon Ships.
Today, the secrets of modern weaponry could not be kept for long. The Trinity of Manhattan Project technology was copied by Soviet Union within 4 years.
Any today's innovative solution will be obsolete tomorrow and the sped of changes is accelerating so no country in the World will have technological advantage for very long.



Edited by Goral - 15 Jan 2014 at 23:42
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2014 at 07:34
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

difficult to say but history is teaching us that the political balance is changing periodically and great alternations to regional/world supremacy is in permanent motion.
In the previous era, same military and commercial inventions could be kept in secret for long time. I mentioned before the Greek Fire which was in exclusive possession of Byzantine Empire for around 200 years.
It was probably invented by Callinicus of Heliopolis at the second half of 7 Century but historical record shows that it was in possession of Moorish Fleet in 861 when in Gibraltar strait Moors routed the marauding Swedish Viking fleet(under command of Hastein and Bjorn Ironside) sinking 40 out of 60 Viking Dragon Ships.
Today, the secrets of modern weaponry could not be kept for long. The Trinity of Manhattan Project technology was copied by Soviet Union within 4 years.
Any today's innovative solution will be obsolete tomorrow and the sped of changes is accelerating so no country in the World will have technological advantage for very long.

On the other hand there is still some powers with acces to far wider range of military tech than others. Some areas may even be US monopoly. Not so much because everyone else can not make the "brainwork", or see the theorietical possibilities as for different ressources.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2014 at 22:47
In theory, most of World 100 biggest economies could manufacture nuclear weapon. All European countries (with the exception of micro countries such as San Marino etc.)could have nuclear weapon within few months from the decision to make it. But they made the right decision not to include nuclear weaponry in their arsenal.
Today China has the knowledge and industrial base to manufacture weaponry similar to USA arsenal and they will certainly do it in nearer future. From the other hand, the Russian arsenal is going to be more and more behind the leading power; USA and China
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2014 at 22:57
It is interesting, and more than a bit unsettling, that 100 years ago, on the eve of WW1 many thought war impossible in such a "modern age", as technology and weaponery had advanced too far. The state of science and technology rendered conflict far too dangerous and destructive, it was imagined, and so world leaders would have to be cautious and find a better way to settle disputes.

Fast forward to 2014, and today we find nations engaging in bellicose, adolescent posturing and brinkmanship. War is again considered to be a near impossibility given its destructive power. Technology clearly progresses, yet the human intellect lags behind. History could again see a terrible miscalculation.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2014 at 23:17
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

War is again considered to be a near impossibility given its destructive power. Technology clearly progresses, yet the human intellect lags behind. History could again see a terrible miscalculation.



Every war is a propulsion for new technology. Usually the technology made a big leap forward every big conflict.
But humanity is making step backward. The WWII is the best example of development of technology in order to kill more human beings.
Just take under consideration Nuclear weaponry and Auschwitz gas chamber.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2014 at 01:23
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

War is again considered to be a near impossibility given its destructive power. Technology clearly progresses, yet the human intellect lags behind. History could again see a terrible miscalculation.



Every war is a propulsion for new technology. Usually the technology made a big leap forward every big conflict.
But humanity is making step backward. The WWII is the best example of development of technology in order to kill more human beings.
Just take under consideration Nuclear weaponry and Auschwitz gas chamber.


Yes, this is so, but we are running out of room for weapon testing ranges. To give just two modest examples: India and Pakistan still see each other as enemy number one, and are quite willing to go to the brink, or beyond, to maintain their manly credentials. This is despite the fact that both are now armed with nuclear weapons. Japan and China are now engaged in a boyish pushing match over some inconsequential islands, which have no meaning short of cheap and easy political points, but yet may alter the entire military spectrum in Asia- or worse. Japan's only true defense against China would be the quick development of nuclear arms. This would have cascading effects throughout Asia, and would place the world much closer to the possibility of another major catastrophe.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2014 at 07:37
I have seen little evidence that tedhnological developments as such have increased the tensions or even caused major wars, but then admit it is still time for learning the new and unexpected.
On the other hand some "experts" claim there is evidence there has been a very substantial decrease in violence relative to total populations at least among all the more prominent societies.
I have the idea from what I know about history they are not entirely wrong. But then this could of course be only a temporary low level, and it is not at all absolute. 
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jan 2014 at 02:44
Au contrary; The recent technological development as such decreased the chance of big war between the major players by mutual deterrence.
But since Hiroshima bomb and the end of WWII there was a hundreds of wars (the biggest; China civil war, Korean War and Vietnam War). I think that it was John Keagan who stated that there was more war causalities caused by conflicts since WWII than during WWII (over 50 mln. death in WWII.)
Technology as such do not create tension between nations but huge technological advantage of one country over weaker opponents could develop the feeling of impunity thus could be a deceive factor in wor or peace consideration.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Feb 2014 at 22:40

Wars were the driving forces for new development of war machines and new weapons. Most of these developments, but not all of them, were  used for peaceful application during interwar periods. Probably the best example is peaceful application was use of aeroplane for civil aviation in interwar period.

In ancient time, the weapon development was not always  transferred into civilian life but was used exclusively on battlefield. In 3 century, the great Chinese  military leader and engineer Zhuge Liang invented (or refined) repainting crossbow. The magazine  of this crossbow could hold 10 bolts (arrows) 7 inches long. The firing mechanism allow for well trained crossbowmen to shot 2 bolts per second. Massed detachment of  1000 crossbowmen could fire  2000 of bolts in one second. Such concentration of firepower was unmatched until invention of machine gun in 19 century.

Zhuge crossbow could fire bolt at the distance 366m. But effective distance for reasonable armour pricing ability was around 50m. This crossbow was used by China’s military as late as the first Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95.



Edited by Goral - 05 Feb 2014 at 02:52
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2014 at 12:56
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

Wars were the driving forces for new development of war machines and new weapons. Most of these developments, but not all of them, were  used for peaceful application during interwar periods. Probably the best example is peaceful application was use of aeroplane for civil aviation in interwar period.

First aeroplanes appeared about a decade before the "Great War", so why see war as the "driving force" behind the initial developments?

Other inventions in period of relative peace in the century between the fall of Napoleon 1. and ww1:

Fotography and film, railways, automobiles, electric lights, telegraphs, telephones, etcetera.



Edited by fantasus - 05 Feb 2014 at 13:16
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Feb 2014 at 20:08

From the very beginning the aviation was  developed for military purpose, including hot air balloons and airship.

Telegraphy was developed primary for railway use in America but we must remember the role of railway in American Civil War and in Europe where the railway network, especially in Germany, was developed under military direction to enhance mobilisation and logistic issue for Army.

Photography was used from beginning as a means of recognisance and intelligence,

Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2014 at 04:22

The Turtle-first operational submarine

Development of first operational submarine by David Bushnell in 1775.

 

Bushnell was a student of Yale university when he started experiments with underwater explosion. First successful underwater explosion  test was carried in 1772 and the destructive power of exploded 900 grams of powder was impressive. It give Bushnell the idea of using such underwater explosion for military use. When in 1775 the national need to break British blockade of American  ports was discussed, Bushnell was ready to offer his  service to Newly created US.

He design and build his submarine on Poverty Island, later moved to his native  Saybrook on  the bank of Connecticut River.

The craft was of barrel shape and was constructed from oak  reinforced with iron bands. Tar was used as a watertight sealant. At the top of the “barrel” Bushnell positioned raised hatch with 6 small windows (a precursor of conning tower in later submarines). Through this windows he could see surrounding area during surface part of approach to enemy vessels.

The submarine was propelled by hand operated screw (same sources stating that it was a paddle wheel, not a screw). A strong operator could develop speed around 3 knots or a short duration.

Additional vertical  hand operated screw was  designed to allow  the operator to exercise vertical movement of the vessel. For balance, the craft was loaded with 200 pounds of lead at the bottom of the barrel.

For submerging, sea water was allowed to ballast tank by hand operated valve. The ballast tank could be pumped out by hand operated pump. The craft was inspected by Benjamin Franklin who was reasonably impressed with the design and construction. At the back of the barrel the craft was carrying container with 155 pounds of black powder including flintlock firing mechanism activated by mechanical timer set before mission began. It could be set for max.12 hours delay.

The sub-marine was tested on Connecticut River successfully. The old test vessel was blown to oblivion by underwater explosion of mine attached to its bottom by submarine.

As the mine was attached to vessel by screw inserted into bottom of enemy vessels, it was necessary to hand operate crank to screw the bolts into attacked vessel.

This proved impossible for submariner Ezra Lee of the first operational mission (7 Sept.1776) as the targeted ship, HMS Eagle (flagship of Admiral Lord Howe) hull was covered with copper sheeting which, according to Ezra Lee could not be penetrated by his boring device.

The mission was aborted and mine was dropped at the bottom of the sea where it exploded harmlessly.

Despite unsuccessful  mission, the first operational sub-marine vessel was born  and used operationally. This give the beginning of development of Submarines as we know them today.


File:Turtle model at the Royal navy submarine museum.jpg


A cut-away full size replica of the Turtle

File:Turtle submarine 1776.jpg


This 19th-century diagram shows the side views of the Turtle.



Edited by Goral - 06 Feb 2014 at 04:29
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2014 at 07:56
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

From the very beginning the aviation was  developed for military purpose, including hot air balloons and airship.

Telegraphy was developed primary for railway use in America but we must remember the role of railway in American Civil War and in Europe where the railway network, especially in Germany, was developed under military direction to enhance mobilisation and logistic issue for Army.

Photography was used from beginning as a means of recognisance and intelligence,

So, was Wright Brothers or Montgolfier brothers funded by money from their countrys military in 1783 or 1903?
Drones are an example of inventions initiated for military purposes with great civilian potential.
I guess they together with similar unmanned devices for underwater exploration may open new doors to the untill now unknown areas of archaeology and even history.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Feb 2014 at 19:50
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


So, was Wright Brothers or Montgolfier brothers funded by money from their countrys military in 1783 or 1903?

Most certainly.
1.Brothers Wright from the very beginning were looking for military contract to recover their cost of initial development.
In 1908 they recieved contract from US Army to produce military aircraft.The price was 25,000 dollars with additional bonus of 2500 dollars if they will be able to produce craft which will exceed contract speed of 40 miles per hr and could carry crew of 2.
2. small Hot air balloons  were used by Chinese military for signalization long before Montgolfier.
Montgolfier only increased the size. After their first flight many european army experimented with balloons for reconnaissance on battlefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning



Edited by Goral - 06 Feb 2014 at 21:40
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 07:39
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


So, was Wright Brothers or Montgolfier brothers funded by money from their countrys military in 1783 or 1903?

Most certainly.
1.Brothers Wright from the very beginning were looking for military contract to recover their cost of initial development.
In 1908 they recieved contract from US Army to produce military aircraft.The price was 25,000 dollars with additional bonus of 2500 dollars if they will be able to produce craft which will exceed contract speed of 40 miles per hr and could carry crew of 2.
2. small Hot air balloons  were used by Chinese military for signalization long before Montgolfier.
Montgolfier only increased the size. After their first flight many european army experimented with balloons for reconnaissance on battlefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning

The difference between chinese lanterns and french balloons seems significant.
That Wrigth brothers looked for military funding - some years later - does not make airplanes from the beginning  the result of any military initiative. Inventors allways looks for financing, no?
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 07:42
Countries that did not participate much in wars were most likely no less innovative than those with heavy involvement
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 08:49
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Countries that did not participate much in wars were most likely no less innovative than those with heavy involvement

Give same examples please


Edited by Goral - 07 Feb 2014 at 08:50
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 10:59
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Countries that did not participate much in wars were most likely no less innovative than those with heavy involvement

Give same examples please
In recent times:Switzerland, Netherlands, Scandinavia seems not less innovative than the rest of Europe.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Feb 2014 at 20:00


Perhaps Alfred Nobel is a good example to support your point of view? Smile
http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm
In 19 and beginning of 20 century Belgium was a powerhouse for firearm development.
Herr Fokker of Holland was a major designer and supplier of war aeroplanes for Kaiser Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker

Niels Bohr knew that his work could be and will be used to development of atomic bomb.
http://www.biography.com/people/niels-bohr-21010897?page=2



Edited by Goral - 08 Feb 2014 at 03:55
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2014 at 04:18

For everyone who likes camping, fishing and other outdoor activates, the canned food is an essential part of equipment. It is a sad true that the beginning of this food preservation has a very clear military roots.  

Not many outdoorsmen are familiar with the name of Frenchman who was inventing this sort of food preservation. His name was Nicolas Appert. He  filled glass jars  with meat, vegetables or fruit, sealed them than treated them wit close to boiling temperature killing all bacterias (at that time nobody know that such creature as bacteria existed by Apperd now that wine exposed to the air will eventually go of and used this knowledge for food preservation).

In 1803 he presented samples of his food to French Navy at Brest. The jars set in storeroom for tree months before they were opened. Afterwards the officer responsible for testing this food send very positive report to the Minister of Navy in Paris. Who ordered second, more demanding test.

The jars of  food were subjected to 4 months of sea voyage before the jars were open and the food heated  and served. The d served.

After another dinner served for Government officials in his factory, the success of his food preservation was tremendous.

Apperd  won the Government prise for best method of food preservation for French Armed Forces, This prise of 12000 Francs was used to build factory which supplied jars of preserved food for Napoleon Bonaparte Army and Navy.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2014 at 13:33
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:



Perhaps Alfred Nobel is a good example to support your point of view? Smile
http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm
In 19 and beginning of 20 century Belgium was a powerhouse for firearm development.
Herr Fokker of Holland was a major designer and supplier of war aeroplanes for Kaiser Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker

Niels Bohr knew that his work could be and will be used to development of atomic bomb.
http://www.biography.com/people/niels-bohr-21010897?page=2

I did not deny that, and if You say the countries not directly involved in most of the 20.th centurys wars often indirectly played a role, by, say´providing raw materials, industrial products and even financial assistance for countries in war I will agree. I still think there is little evidence countries that have been relatively less burdened by external as well as internal conflicts "suffers" from lack of innovation more than other countries. Since wars cost a lot, both directly in ressources, but also takes human energies and lives there may be a heavy price to pay, also for science and technology.
A country with some "surplus", not absorbed by wars can use this surplus for new technologies and scientific purposes.
On the other hand, if we only look at countries winning their wars without too heavy losses, they may perform approximately as well.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2014 at 13:59
However the examples I used in this thread are from various source, I will suggest you to read Martin Van Creveld  "Technology and War" which inspired me to start this thread.
I do not want to say that all innovations has been created as a tools of war, but almost all of them has been use for waging the war.
 It is a sad truth that the humanity use the best creation of human intellect to wage war and use these inventions for destructive purpose.

Martin Van Creveld  said in his book
"It is true that every part of war is touched by technology,it is no less true that every part of technology affects the war"Indeed,technologies not ordinarily regarded as military,such as radio vehicles,communications,and timekeepers, have done as much as weapon and weapon systems to shape th face of war.these technologies govern ,and may indeed constitute,what we have called the infrastructure of war. The infrastructure goes a long way to dictate the character of organization,logistic,intelligence,strategy.even of battle itself.Without it the conduit of armed conflictual be impossible,and it very existence ,inconceivable"
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2014 at 20:38
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:

However the examples I used in this thread are from various source, I will suggest you to read Martin Van Creveld  "Technology and War" which inspired me to start this thread.
I do not want to say that all innovations has been created as a tools of war, but almost all of them has been use for waging the war.
 It is a sad truth that the humanity use the best creation of human intellect to wage war and use these inventions for destructive purpose.

Martin Van Creveld  said in his book
"It is true that every part of war is touched by technology,it is no less true that every part of technology affects the war"Indeed,technologies not ordinarily regarded as military,such as radio vehicles,communications,and timekeepers, have done as much as weapon and weapon systems to shape th face of war.these technologies govern ,and may indeed constitute,what we have called the infrastructure of war. The infrastructure goes a long way to dictate the character of organization,logistic,intelligence,strategy.even of battle itself.Without it the conduit of armed conflictual be impossible,and it very existence ,inconceivable"
I find no specific point of disagreement in Your post above.
Still I wonder if the outcome  of  the biggest and most decisive wars of the last centuries was the result of difference in technologies or any "gap" in this area, or if other factors (particularly: ressources and manpower) were more decisive, since none of the opposing parties were not so much behind the other - overall.
Back to Top
Arun Mohan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arun Mohan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 05:32
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jun 2014 at 10:39
Quote From the very beginning the aviation was  developed for military purpose, including hot air balloons and airship.

Not really. All those guys gluing feathers to their arms and leaping off tall buildings or cliffs were trying to emulate the birds, not to find a way of spotting enemy movements. I agree that the military did keep a low levbel of interest in the development of aviation, but at the same time, were not interested in deploying or paying for it. In fact, even when practical aeroplanes were first constructed, the armies of Europe really weren't interested, seeing no good purpose in flying machines other than reconnaisance, and indeed for some time regarded their pilots as 'trench dodgers' who were refused parachutes on the grounds that these men might jump out of their expensive machines at any excuse. A Sopwith fighter in 1918 cost around £700 - that was a lot of money in those days.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 05:20
I think the development of aircraft moved in continuous circles. First, the spirit of adventure, modified for warfare, further modified for passengers and cargo and around again to the current age.
 
Each developmental stage opened the door for more development.
 
Likewise the atomic bomb. Developed for warfare, lead to development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
 
Medicine worked for the prevention and cure of disease, modifications were made to chemicals to make them a tool of warfare.
 
Science over the ages has often developed in one direction and at the same time opened more doors for development in different areas and for different purposes.
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 961
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 10:59
Warfare did encourage development. Between 1935 when Hitlers sabre rattling was getting obvious until the defeat of his regime in Europe in 1945, fighter aeroplanes literally went from WW1 biplanes with added metal to transonic jet fighters. A huge advance in a ten year peiord, driven by intense competition.

On the other hand, the Cessna 150 I learned to fly on was little more advanced than a late thirties concept. Only since the arrival of composite materials and silicon technology have light aircraft made any advances in design at all.


Edited by caldrail - 17 Jun 2014 at 11:01
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2014 at 12:30
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Warfare did encourage development. Between 1935 when Hitlers sabre rattling was getting obvious until the defeat of his regime in Europe in 1945, fighter aeroplanes literally went from WW1 biplanes with added metal to transonic jet fighters. A huge advance in a ten year peiord, driven by intense competition.

On the other hand, the Cessna 150 I learned to fly on was little more advanced than a late thirties concept. Only since the arrival of composite materials and silicon technology have light aircraft made any advances in design at all.
 
I'm surprised that we haven't seen the emergence of a light aircraft with a small jet engine, or have we?
Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.