Game changing technologies.

[pokerspiv]

The English Channel had a fair bit to do with it as well.

 

[Power Raid]

Radar saved England in WW2 in the. Attle of Britain. Probably all speaking German on our European holidays if not for that.

70 years later; that would have been a better outcome for the UK

 

[Catfish Alley]

70 years later; that would have been a better outcome for the UK

Only if Germany ended up in the same place they are now. Under Nazi rule - I doubt it.

 

[Jakko]

The English Channel had a fair bit to do with it as well.

For sure. What radar, and its integration into a central command structure allowed, was the ability to only send up fighters and their valuable pilots when needed.

A non radar Battle of Britain would rely on shipping reports (infrequent) coastal spotters, and boring random air patrols (burning fuel, pilots as well as planes).

Then you add the force multiplier of recovered friendly pilots able to strap into a brand new plane within days or weeks...whereas german pilots downed went into captivity, experience and leadership lost on one hand, recovered on the other.

 

[pokerspiv]

The issue I was really getting at was that even if the British had lost the air battle, Germany still couldn't have occupied Great Britain because the channel protects the island. Winning the battle of Britain did allow them to continue bombing German targets in Europe though, which was important to the overall war effort.

 

[The Coup]

How about globalised standardised time? eg the thing that makes air travel and communication across continents possible.

 

[little graham]

Radar saved England in WW2 in the. Attle of Britain. Probably all speaking German on our European holidays if not for that.

Where did you learn that? Pretty radical teachings that.

Russians and the Americans saved Britain. Even though they both wanted them weakened as much as possible (which they got). Germany only put pressure on England to try and get rid of the capitalist nuts dominating politics and to hamper Englands ability to age war.

There would of been a few Wafen SS divisions raised in Brittan and sent to the eastern front had Britian signed a treaty or been overrun. They would of fought rather well. Alot better than the eighth army did.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Where did you learn that? Pretty radical teachings that.

Russians and the Americans saved Britain. Even though they both wanted them weakened as much as possible (which they got). Germany only put pressure on England to try and get rid of the capitalist nuts dominating politics and to hamper Englands ability to age war.

There would of been a few Wafen SS divisions raised in Brittan and sent to the eastern front had Britian signed a treaty or been overrun. They would of fought rather well. Alot better than the eighth army did.

Obviously that was an exaggeration, there were a number of components, including the shift of the Germans from bombing the airfields to populAtion centres, high among them. All though whole the usa finally helped out they could have been too late if the Brits didn't hold the Germans off in the air how they did. Ably helped by radar.

 

[little graham]

Obviously that was an exaggeration, there were a number of components, including the shift of the Germans from bombing the airfields to populAtion centres, high among them. All though whole the usa finally helped out they could have been too late if the Brits didn't hold the Germans off in the air how they did. Ably helped by radar.

Germans were not interested in invading England. Didn't target population centers either. Targeted shipping, aircraft factories ect. Germans couldn't afford to stuff around. The targeting of population centers was a bomber command thing.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Germans has the English beat when focus was on airfields, factories etc then changed to blitz and lost momentum as Brits were able to continue manufacturing and keep their airfields usable.

 

[Jakko]

The issue I was really getting at was that even if the British had lost the air battle, Germany still couldn't have occupied Great Britain because the channel protects the island. Winning the battle of Britain did allow them to continue bombing German targets in Europe though, which was important to the overall war effort.

Yeah I agree.

Germans has the English beat when focus was on airfields, factories etc then changed to blitz and lost momentum as Brits were able to continue manufacturing and keep their airfields usable.

The airfields in the southeast were certainly under huge pressure, but that's only the forward airfields. Rendering those unusable was not a guaranteed ticket to air superiority over English soil.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The needle and thread deserves a mention too. It's invention is lost in the distant past, but without it the human race would have been very limited geographically to areas of suitably warm climate.

 

[pokerspiv]

The needle and thread deserves a mention too. It's invention is lost in the distant past, but without it the human race would have been very limited geographically to areas of suitably warm climate.

Surely its fairly possible to make clothes out of animal skins without need for needle and thread?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Surely its fairly possible to make clothes out of animal skins without need for needle and thread?

Don't think so. Fitted and sewn clothing is so much more efficient, it keeps the wind out. I'm thinking about human migrations through Siberia, across the Bering Strait and onto the Americas. It's hell cold up there. Humans wouldn't survive without a very efficient form of clothing that covered from head to toe and kept out the cold and the wind over every inch of the body. A few old furs thrown over the shoulders just wouldn't cut it, too much skin would be exposed to frost-bite.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

This thread makes me want to play Civilisation..brb in 14 hours.

Somebody early on mentioned the crossbow, but about 500 years earlier, around 800AD, a far simpler technology was probably the one thing which pulled Europe out of the dark ages and into feudalism- which provided the stability, social structures and power bases which allowed europe to take those first halting steps down the path towards towards the renaissance. I'm referring of course to these bad boys-

The advent of the stirrup totally changed what people could do on horseback, and meant that a knight in armor > a group of thugs on foot. It made monarchs reliant on noble families to supply military muscle, because suddenly being cashed up enough to buy a horse and train on it made people far more effective than any number of poor people, and it meant a fairly small elite could hold large areas of land. Basically, it helped create the nation states which have governed European (and global) history since that point. No stirrup, no heriditary families, and possibly no magna carta,

The issue I was really getting at was that even if the British had lost the air battle, Germany still couldn't have occupied Great Britain because the channel protects the island. Winning the battle of Britain did allow them to continue bombing German targets in Europe though, which was important to the overall war effort.

That is really untrue- what would have happened if the British had lost the air battle is uncertain, but thanks to an earlier invention called a boat, the Germans certainly could have occupied Great Britain.

In this regard, its worth remembering two things

- the British army at that point was in a genuinely terrible state, with huge equipment shortages, and they had next to no armor, and a lot of things which were nowhere near fit for purpose- the problem for the germans was getting sufficient numbers of troops and armor ashore and keeping them supplied- if they could manage that, there is no reason to suppose they wouldn't have crushed the british army exactly the same way they had done in the battle of france.
- Although the british had a superior navy, at that point of the war, military planners on both sides underestimated the vulnerability of navy ships to air attack. The pacific campaigns made it clear that without air cover, surface ships were toast.

If the Germans had won the battle of britain and held air superiority, the royal navy would have sustained catastrophic losses when it tried to intervene to prevent the invasion, and in a battle of attrition, you can build dive bombers far quicker than you can build destroyers. In a scenario where the RAF was more or less completely wiped out prior to the invasion, I think it is a certainty that the Germans would have gotten troops ashore, and very possible that they would have been able to keep them supplied for long enough to take London.

 

[Jakko]

That is really untrue- what would have happened if the British had lost the air battle is uncertain, but thanks to an earlier invention called a boat, the Germans certainly could have occupied Great Britain.

In this regard, its worth remembering two things

- the British army at that point was in a genuinely terrible state, with huge equipment shortages, and they had next to no armor, and a lot of things which were nowhere near fit for purpose- the problem for the germans was getting sufficient numbers of troops and armor ashore and keeping them supplied- if they could manage that, there is no reason to suppose they wouldn't have crushed the british army exactly the same way they had done in the battle of france.
- Although the british had a superior navy, at that point of the war, military planners on both sides underestimated the vulnerability of navy ships to air attack. The pacific campaigns made it clear that without air cover, surface ships were toast.

If the Germans had won the battle of britain and held air superiority, the royal navy would have sustained catastrophic losses when it tried to intervene to prevent the invasion, and in a battle of attrition, you can build dive bombers far quicker than you can build destroyers. In a scenario where the RAF was more or less completely wiped out prior to the invasion, I think it is a certainty that the Germans would have gotten troops ashore, and very possible that they would have been able to keep them supplied for long enough to take London.

The reality is that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was not trained or equipped to deal with shipping targets. 1941-2 onwards is a different matter, because they had recognised, and corrected their weaknesses (as their anti shipping efforts in the Mediterranean showed). Even roaming fast torpedo boats, which were a dime a dozen (the german boats of the same class were a real menace throughout the war) are a huge threat to supply/support shipping..

If an invasion was actually attempted, the whole Royal Navy, boats big or small would just converge on the channel. Hit hard and run amok during the night, disperse N or SW by day as needed. No shortage of naval ports out of german air range.

 

[pokerspiv]

That is really untrue- what would have happened if the British had lost the air battle is uncertain, but thanks to an earlier invention called a boat, the Germans certainly could have occupied Great Britain.

That kinda makes the point that despite of the invention of the boat, nobody has successfully invaded the British Isles since 1066. Nobody has succeeded in landing on GB since they developed their own navy. An island with limited safe landing points is the best form of natural defense there is.

Look at how many resources the allies expended in the invasion of Normandy. And that's when they got to choose the #1 best entry point out of all the choices in Europe. There aren't many choices available to land on Great Britain, which makes it much easier to develop a counter-strategy.

 

[The Coup]

Likewise I can't imagine too many easy landing spots in Australia that won't leave you completely isolated (and prone to relentless bombing in the process)

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Definitely the steam engine. It basically drove the industrial revolution in Britain, and through the use of coal as something other than a last resort home fire substance transformed city culture. As well as being used in that other great invetnion, the railroad, which greatly sped up the rate of incursion by European settlement across North America and allowed the cities of Europe to grow beyond what would have been possible without it (subway systems and the like) in the years before the internal combustion egine.
And across the seas, shipping was no longer dependent on favourable winds. We often thiknk of the Mississippi paddle steamer, but being able to sail into India, China and Japan in iron ships regardless of winds was a huge game-changer in subjugating the east.

The internal combustion engine. Today's cities are aimed at cars at least as much as people. Nothing has transformed modern life as much as the family car.

Radio (and later television). Mass media by the airwaves was probably a bigger game changer than the printing press, itself among the most noteable of all time and regarded as a precursor to mass education.

Likewise the telegraph and later telephone, instantly being able to connect with a specific person. That had been sped up with the railway and steam ships, but that became globally and almost instantly.

The transistor. Computers existed before the transistor, but its unlikely we would have the same amount of computing power (and more importantly, widespread access) without the transistor and the later minitaurisation of billions of transistors onto microchips. From delivering letters via e-mail to delivering missiles to specific targets, the impact has been huge and is still an unknown quantity.

Not a technology but an absolute game changer. The corporation. The industrial revolution brought together larger factories and industries. The corporation brought together capital to make those industries bigger than most nations.

Scientific method, without which many of the above may have taken decades or centuries longer to be discovered/invented.

 

[little graham]

The needle and thread deserves a mention too. It's invention is lost in the distant past, but without it the human race would have been very limited geographically to areas of suitably warm climate.

Strange belief.

Thousand of years ago aboriginals lived on this continent when it was a frozen desert, snowstorms would go on for months. In other parts like Tasmania they burnt the forests in the winter to stop them freezing over

 

[Grin]

Computer guided plastic injection moulding.

One of the initial developers was the fellow who created Moldflow in Melbourne.
Also the first person in Australia to import a PC or whatever they were called back then.

 

[Jakko]

Likewise I can't imagine too many easy landing spots in Australia that won't leave you completely isolated (and prone to relentless bombing in the process)

As always it comes down to how much you can guarantee supply. Allies in Normandy waited until every side of the conflict (air/navy/ground numbers/huge supply chain from across the atlantic) was in their favour. At that point, any landing , if properly supported, will succeed. Youre right about Australian landing spots, but as history shows if any opponent is even in a position to attempt it, then things have already gone horrible wrong.

 

[clogged]

Strange belief.

Thousand of years ago aboriginals lived on this continent when it was a frozen desert, snowstorms would go on for months. In other parts like Tasmania they burnt the forests in the winter to stop them freezing over

When, oh when was this?

 

[telsor]

That kinda makes the point that despite of the invention of the boat, nobody has successfully invaded the British Isles since 1066. Nobody has succeeded in landing on GB since they developed their own navy. An island with limited safe landing points is the best form of natural defense there is.

Look at how many resources the allies expended in the invasion of Normandy. And that's when they got to choose the #1 best entry point out of all the choices in Europe. There aren't many choices available to land on Great Britain, which makes it much easier to develop a counter-strategy.

Firstly, it wasn't the best area...Pas de Calais would have been better from a supply perspective, more ports and closer (which is why the Germans had fortified that area heaviest of all).

The other big difference is that, especially early, the Brits didn't have anywhere near the same level of defenses. Immediately after Dunkirk, Goering and one of his Air Marshalls (Milch) went and inspected the wreakage and crap left behind on the beach there, did some guestimates on what the Brits had left in terms of heavy equipment and put together a plan for an immediate airbourne assault on the UK.

It was rejected due both to risk and the fact that the fighting in France was still ongoing, but it would have been 'interesting'. The Brits, quite literally, had next to nothing left in terms of heavy equipment...artillery, tanks, machine guns etc...basically their entire inventory was what had come off the production lines in the previous few weeks and hadn't been shipped to France yet. Even 'light' stuff like Rifles were mostly WW1 vintage stuff that had hastily dragged out of storage. I read a story about a commando raid launched a week after Dunkirk...One notable factoid was that they had 4 machine guns with them, and that was half of the machine guns in Britain at the time!

 

[KGBeast]

In terms of conventional warfare it must be the aircraft carrier and the constant upgrading and development of the fighter/bomber. We saw the first and second gulf wars decided by air power alone. Americas worldwide military might relies heavily on the aircraft carrier and the arsenal it carries.