“...the technology of today’s Army is pretty awesome compared to what we had.
“Brilliant innovations in the midst of conflict are rare”.
One great example comes to mind and it was very simple and saved the day, so to speak, and that was the Rhino tank at Normandy.”
I should have said “brilliant scientific/technical innovations that radically alter the strategic situation and impact the battlefield don’t occur very often during wartime.”
That is a big generalization. And one specific invention often has to wait until additional inventions make it feasible to combine all of them into a system that can give one side or the other the edge.
However:
- Gunpowder (in the West) did not appear while Euro powers were slugging it out.
- The steam engine appeared before 1700. But steam powered ships and railroads didn’t emerge during the French Revolution nor the Napoleonic Wars that followed. Only after.
- Breechloading guns (little and big) were around for centuries, before technical advances of the 1810s-1840s made them more feasible.
- Industrial innovations of the 1860s-1870s made production of better steel possible, in greatly increased quantities, enabling production of better artillery. Euro wars of the time were short & limited compared to before & after.
- Innovations in chemistry that led to nitro propellants (smokeless powder) and high explosives happened before 1850; improvements in metallurgy and industrial technique that made self-contained cartridges possible proceeded from the 1830s into the 1880s.
- However, major changes in the equipage of the world’s armed forces came only after the American Civil War, during which repeating arms first saw use. Rimfire cartridges dated to the 1850s, and centerfire cartridges appeared in the 1860s. Gatling’s mechanically actuated rapid-fire gun did emerge during ACW, but its impact remained small until better ammunition was developed. It (and a number of other mechanically actuated guns like Nordenfelt, Gardner, Hotchkiss etc) contributed to the development of the self-powered machine gun; the invention of hydro-pneumatic recoil braking enabled much higher rates of artillery fire. All of these contributed to the firepower revolution that made World War One so terrible. None came about during wartime.
- Flight (lighter-than-air) dated to the 1780s, but remained only marginally useful until aeronautics saw lengthier research, and a sufficiently light power source could be developed. Once the principles were figured out, and internal combustion engines were developed, heavier-than-air flight became a reality soon after.
- The tank (cross-country armored fighting vehicle) was a major development during World War One, but consisted of innovations (tracks, engines, QF guns) that had appeared in peacetime.
- Almost no innovation at all occurred in aviation during WW1, save the production of more powerful engines and heavier airplanes. The invention of gun-synchronizer systems was about the limit, which did alter the direction of development in air combat. Real advances in powered flight did not happen until the 1920s, when truly reliable air-cooled engines first appeared, aerodynamics enjoyed increased theoretical understanding, and catalytic petroleum refining permitted the production of much higher octane fuels (1930s).
- The submarine appeared in the 1770s, and development advanced from 1860 to 1900. Well before it had major impact during WW1.
- Gas turbine developments belonged to the 1920s, permitting the creation of jet-powered aircraft, which only began to affect the military situation as World War Two was ending.
- Advancements in electronics dated back before 1900, and were only spottily pursued to develop long-range radio communications (1910 or so), tactical radio (about 1920), radar (1930s), electronic computing (late 1930s - early 1940s), unmanned aircraft (1940s), cruise missiles (mid 1940s), and ballistic missiles (mid 1940s).
The production of hedgerow-cutting devices mounted on armored vehicles (Rhino tanks you spoke of) was indeed a brilliant adaptation, but it wasn’t a new invention. Says great things about the savvy & moxie of US GIs - and the openness of the American military hierarchy to needed changes - but it was a field modification, not a new system.
Thanks!