Talk:Technological escalation during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

This article doesn't seem right, it mentions infantry AT weapons weren't available at the outbrake of world war II. This is not true, infantry AT weapons were available in large number in the form of AT rifles.

[edit] Merge with Technology during World War II?

Both articles cover about the same subject and Technology during World War II seems to be much more complete.84.231.99.112 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vs. WWI

"Unlike technological escalation during World War I, it was generally believed that speed and firepower, not defenses or entrenchments, would bring the war to a quicker end" Of cource WWI-era people believed in speed and firepower too! It was just those tactics and technologies that were used at the begining of the war and developed during the conflict. Of course it just happened, that defensive technologies and tactics had advanced faster, but this was by accident and not because people "believed that defenses or entrenchments, would bring the war to a quicker end"! The sentence is thus wrong and doesn't do WWI-era leaders and inventors justice. 213.243.181.212 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Requesting comments on the move of this article to the new title Military research and development during World War II with the intention of expanding this into the main article for the category to be create of the same name

  • Just seeing the move request, my first thought was that R&D was too wordy, and that this article should move to Military technology in World War II. Since there appears to be an existing article along those lines, I suggest you just merge this and create a "technology" category to match, rather than a R&D one. Or just use "research" rather than "research and development" if you really want to emphasise the process rather than the result. FlagSteward (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (campaigning for punchy titles on Wikipedia since 19xx)
The problem is that the article links to Technological escalation in the Category:Technology. I have though about this though, and would like to suggest an alternative, Technological superiority during World War II.[1][2][3][4] It seems to me this article is not about R&D at all, nor is it as broad as Military technology in World War II, but specifically about the use of R&D to get better Military technology. It is in fact the linking article between the scientific development, and the employment in combat, and should be about all the pre-production test-beds and weird projects, failed machinery of war, all the pains of getting new designs to work as promised, etc. How does this sound?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely 'technological competition' would be better than 'technological superiority'? Describes the process. Buckshot06(prof) 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WWII was a peoples war and many scientists and others were enrolled for war work which would not normally be called military. Military R&D describes what happens in peacetime. Technological competition is betterSheredot (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Page 1032, "MAINTAINING TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY" Department of Defense Appropriations for ...: Hearings Before the ... - by United States Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations - 1949
  2. ^ [1] This shift away from a mobilization based military and toward an emphasis on maintaining technological superiority was fundamental to the shaping of wider economic relations of the post-Korean domestic economy. Before and during W.W.II, the American military (and economic) strategy was embodied in the concept of mobilization (Milward, 1977). That capital-intensive model of war (having itself replaced the labor-intensive model of the previous century) was now being replaced with the scientific-intensive model embodied in the twin doctrines of technological superiority and nuclear deterrence (McLauchlan, 1992).
  3. ^ [2] p.48, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology (1995)
  4. ^ Weapons Procurement: The Futility of Reform, Thomas L. McNaugher, International Security, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 63-104
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.