if WW1 continued on,how long would it take until this alternate

File: 1486169955989.gif (1MB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x304px

100?

File: tekk.jpg (28KB, 319x494px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 319x494px

999999

>>2874330
99 Years.

>>2874330

If you want a non-meme answer, it's going to be "never".

While you see a lot of military technological advancement during a war, it's all based on the tech base that already existed from before the war. Taking what was possible and extending it as far as possible. The pressing need for the now means that investments into the "unknown" are stymied. All the technology needed to make the Mk1 existed from before WW1, the technology needed to make a 3rd generation MBT equivalent did not. Research into computing would have halted altogether, as those fields would have had their resources stripped in favor of more pressing matters of battle need.

File: Drpepper.jpg (47KB, 250x633px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x633px

El Psy Congroo

File: image.jpg (82KB, 650x440px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 650x440px

post more ww1 tanks

I am skeptical of the meme that war drives research. The economic burden would cost R&D far more than any increased motivation to invest in R&D and it is all directed into a few tanks and aircraft, they see pretty impressive rapid advances but at the expense of other sectors of the economy. People also confuse cause and effect, wars are often inflamed by disruptive new technology.

However the US would be largely unscathed and free to do its thing thus offsetting the economic devastation. As the old world is embroiled in constant war the US would continue to have a thriving economy and establish a durable global hegemony by the 1950s or so preventing civil wars in the undeveloped world and opening up Russia and China earlier. It may actually reach our levels a few decades earlier than usual.

>>2874390
i think it's the exact opposite.
What drives technology is competition.
With both sides trying to kill each other at a more efficient rate more efficient weapons will be needed to do the job.
investing in big artillery would be inefficient since they would be prone to airstikes,instead long range direct systems such as missiles would be preferable.Missiles require guidance,and the payload is going to have to be delivered by something fast and nimble.
i would say that the focus would be control over air and space,with naval tech lacking behind and land being something in the middle with the usage of SAM's and MLRS.

If it continued until modern times then we'd all be dead, but if it continued for another 5 to 10 years then we might be 20 or so years ahead technologically

Of course this is all speculation and I pulled these numbers out of my ass

File: westfrontdeutscherpanze.jpg (77KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x576px

>>2874410

File: mkb-sov.jpg (89KB, 747x495px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 747x495px

>>2874410
.

File: mk4germ.jpg (27KB, 617x311px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 617x311px

>>2874985
Technically not WWI but it's the same era.

>>2874979

like the jawa sandcrawler

hilarious

File: ft17-02.jpg (79KB, 767x463px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 767x463px

French Renault FT-17

>>2874330


There is a breaking point in which countries physically cannot continue war fighting. You'd reach that by 1920 if the same intensity was mantained throughout. The US would be the only country with men left to bleed.

Regardless, in war, technology that is already conceptualized gets tested and practical things are learned, but actual research slows down. I figure the most advanced WWI would get would be Spanish Civil war levels.

>>2874754

Re-read the comment again.

War does drive innovation, but at an incremental level, because they are low risk and have the most immediate payoff for resources invested. But incrementalism is prone to dead ends, and to get from the Mk1 to the CR2, there were several revolutionary advancements in technology, metallurgy, and design, all of which happened during peacetime, where the lack of pressure allows the scientist to work on theory and the engineers to work on more risky designs.

Take the example of tanks during WW2. The Panzer 3 is 1/4th the tonnage of the Tiger 2; firepower, mobility, and protection all saw drastic improvements, but these improvements were all incremental. Drastic differences in design didn't really change. For example, both tanks used very similar front drive transmission, because the German engineers could not make a more reliable rear-drive transmission, which would have allowed the tanks to be much shorter. If you put a Panzer 3 on crack, you would get something that resembled a Tiger 2, and Germany would not have arrived at anything similar to Leopard 1.

The American story is similar. The M4 Sherman shared many many design features with the pre-war M2 Medium, notably the suspension and transmissions. The M4 used the same VVSS front-drive transmission as the M2, because that's what they knew and they needed a good tank now, rather than a perfect tank later. The development of the torsion bar, rear drive Pershing would take almost 4 years, which is an eternity in wartime. Other aspects of the Pershing remained remarkably similar to the M4 Sherman, which in turn carried many features from the M2 medium.

When you look at the Soviets, their most fanciful designs popped up post war, with the electrical driven IS-6 and the assisted loading IS-7. What they built during the war were incremental improvements on what they already had.

File: sanger-3.jpg (25KB, 366x273px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 366x273px

>>2875643
>War does drive innovation, but at an incremental level

Only up to a certain degree,designs tend to exponentialy increase in size when it is at an incremental level like the Tiger and the Maus,so it leads up to a stalemate where 2000 tonne land ironclads duke out with 500 mm battleship cannons until one side figures out that they can easilly be destroyed by a Grand slam type bomb dropped from 8 000 feet,so R&D funding goes into experimental technologies like long range missiles and jet fighters in order to out compete one another in a new type of warfare.

>>2874330
A very long time. Humanity would have been nearly extinct, with most of the male's population gone away. (Sounds like a setting for a harem light novel, though.)

>>2874445
the thing is, you don't know if your research and military development actually translates into efficient improvements on the battlefield until you test it on a battlefield. Wars are like field tests and tech seems to advance a lot during them because a)a lot more money goes into it during these periods and b)there is a lot of trial and error so designs are battle-tested

Just look at France after WW1. All this money into a military strategy they thought was "progress" but it turns out that for decades nobody knew that it was actually backwards and stagnating until germany actually put their defenses to the test.

The idea that military drives civilian research is mostly a meme with some undeniable exceptions. Military tech getting better during military conflicts however is common sense.

>>2874390
Nigger the theory for computers had already existed for 200 years prior to WW1, and it only got so far as it did during the 40s because of WW2. Of course we would have computers, dumb fug.

>>2875909
>so R&D funding goes into experimental technologies like long range missiles and jet fighters in order to out compete one another in a new type of warfare.

Which in turn, were based on technologies that were first developed in before the war, and themselves underwent incremental advancements over the course of the war, with the most significant advances occurring after the war had ended.

War causes material shortages, which isn't generally good for technological development. The British for example, went with centrifugal jet engines mainly because they were robust and relatively easy to build when compared to axial-flow designs, and so did not require the use of rare and difficult-to-acquire materials like titanium. Eventually, it is inevitable that the pace of practical technological development would slow to a crawl simply because you do not have the resources to create superior equipment.

>>2876422

They went far because the computers of the time had a clear military application. When it comes to something like say, a transistor, you'd have convince people that its advantages outweigh all the disadvantages of rebuilding the entire electronics industry around this singular device. Under wartime conditions, this is pretty much nigh-impossible, since all lines have to be used to outproduce your opponent.

>>2876540
Transistors are fantastic for cost-saving. I think in an apocalyptic scenario like WW1 somehow going on until this day that would be a great incentive to invest in it.

>>2876747
In the long-term, yes. But in the short-term, you'd experience disruptions in supply of other critical equipment.

>>2876982
I don't remember the story that well but i'm fairly certain the transistor already existed by the late 1800s, but they were used for something else, and someone decided it was a good idea for use in computers.

The only initial cost would be setting up a factory for them, but it's better than having to secure an entire room and filling it with valuable material every time you need a new computer

>>2877015
A working transistor was first made in the 50's (a patent for a similar device that wasn't made was around since the 20's though) by Bell labs.

At least that's the official story. Everybody knows that the first transistor was recovered from the crashed alien vessel in Roswell.

>>2874330
Last crusade tank
Wooo

>>2877015
You appear to be getting transistors mixed up with semiconductors in general.

Setting up production does not simply entail building a factory. There would be R&D to make theory into reality, and finally, to make reality ready for mass production. Suppliers would also have to retool to provide the necessary refined materials and parts. Finally, at the end of all this, you need to have redesigned electronics ready to accommodate the new transistors, all requiring their own separate R&D and retooling processes, or otherwise you end up with a warehouse full of useless bits. In the meanwhile, you are using a lot of time, manpower, and resources for something that will not have practical applications ready for at least several years. For all you know, this newfangled device could turn out to be a complete flop, either due to defects in hasty manufacturing, or from the very concept itself.

>>2877283
My last post might have had them mixed up.

Since we're still in this topic tho, would any country fighting a 20+ year long war still be looking for a quick victory?
I mean the prospect of such a long, uninterrupted, drown out war is obviously unfeasible in on itself, but I think that if it did happen the people in power would start to re-think their ideas of what "a long time investment" means.

>>2877283
>>2877310
Hm, nope, I did meant a transistor.

I'll have to see if I can remember where I got that idea from.