Be a crazy scientist, travel in time to give someone super weapons.

[Marek_Gutkowski]

Ok, fiction is full of Dr. Frankenstains Doc Browns, and Rick Sanches'.
If you would get the ability to go to the past and gift someone of your choice with out-of-time equipment, what would you bring with you? Let's assume you have the means to put the equipment in the field. So if you want to give guns to medieval power you can afford to build a foundry and powder shops to make the required ingredients. However, the limits of the technology of the time period do apply. If Romans cannot make a mechanical clock they are not able to make assault rifles. They could make a few but those would be painstakingly made sculptures. Conversely something simpler like a stirup horse harnes or a rudder is no problem. The downside is other people will copy that real quick.


With that being said I would travel to 1790's France and build a naval steam powerplant.
The machine tooling to make those exist in the period. It is not beyond the ability of France to produce.
Same for the ironclad. You can put iron plates on a ship, the limit is that the hull would still need to be wooden. That period iron-hulled ships had a nasty tendency to crack in cold weather.
Yes, other places would be able to copy the engine, but it would be years before they get it right.

The downside is there is a revolution going on. Personal safety is not guaranteed.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Meh, weapons matter a lot less than support equipment. Provide a country of the time with the theory and adapted manufacturing capability for wireless telegraphy and a lot of fun can happen, much, much moreso than with early armoured ships that are more likely than not to be captured by the Royal Navy's superior seamanship. WT, full geological maps, basics for antibiotics or field medicine and the luls will be epic.

 

[DukeofDawn]

Meh, weapons matter a lot less than support equipment. Provide a country of the time with the theory and adapted manufacturing capability for wireless telegraphy and a lot of fun can happen, much, much moreso than with early armoured ships that are more likely than not to be captured by the Royal Navy's superior seamanship. WT, full geological maps, basics for antibiotics or field medicine and the luls will be epic.

What matters even more, is having the right personnel to exploit the opportunity, handing over 21th century tech to a superstitious simpleton is not an ideal scenario for exemple.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

What matters even more, is having the right personnel to exploit the opportunity, handing over 21th century tech to a superstitious simpleton is not an ideal scenario for exemple.

Don't worry, the "supersitious simpleton" thing is mostly bad popular History propagated by pseudo-rationalists who believe in nonsense like "The Middle Ages had no scientific and technological progress because the Church sabotaged it all". A very large part of the political, economic and military leadership across History looks the same, with similar shares of complete idiots century after century.

 

[Marek_Gutkowski]

Meh, weapons matter a lot less than support equipment. Provide a country of the time with the theory and adapted manufacturing capability for wireless telegraphy and a lot of fun can happen, much, much moreso than with early armoured ships that are more likely than not to be captured by the Royal Navy's superior seamanship. WT, full geological maps, basics for antibiotics or field medicine and the luls will be epic.

Ok wireless telegraph, but to who and when would you give it.

As for Royal Navy nicking the steam-powered ships. They could do that but it is quite unlikely. Even a captain that got the rank because he was somebody's idiot cousin and the navy was a way to get him away from squandering the family fortune can always order full steam ahead and get away from the perfidious Albion.
The boarding action stopped being a viable tactic because of the steam engine. You can demast a steamship but it can still run away. If it is unable to run away it is likely it is already sinking so there is no point in boarding it.

What matters even more, is having the right personnel to exploit the opportunity, handing over 21th century tech to a superstitious simpleton is not an ideal scenario for exemple.

I don't know if you are making a joke or not. But a few years back a superpower that will not be named, gave XXI century tech and weapons to a mountainous country full of superstitious simpletons that would also not be named, and the results were not all that impressive.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Ok wireless telegraph, but to who and when would you give it.

Meh, I was just pointing out the increased effectiveness of such technologies.

As for Royal Navy nicking the steam-powered ships. They could do that but it is quite unlikely. Even a captain that got the rank because he was somebody's idiot cousin and the navy was a way to get him away from squandering the family fortune can always order full steam ahead and get away from the perfidious Albion.

You would be surprised at the importance of good sailors and crew over technological advances, or the prevalence of "common sense".

I don't know if you are making a joke or not. But a few years back a superpower that will not be named, gave XXI century tech and weapons to a mountainous country full of superstitious simpletons that would also not be named, and the results were not all that impressive.

Less a matter of superstitions and more one of corruption combined with total lack of legitimacy of the State.

 

[Marek_Gutkowski]

You would be surprised at the importance of good sailors and crew over technological advances, or the prevalence of "common sense".

No, I wouldn't.
I have been at this for as long as you have. Our expertise may not overlap in some areas but I do have some grasp of the basics.

Competence and good leadership trumps technological advantage, but only to a point.
In the example, I gave if Nelson had to face steam-powered ships (well there wouldn't be a Trafalgar because he could not intercept Villeneuve and Gravina) his earlier battles would not be victories.
If his enemy can always run away from him Nelson would be a footnote in the history book of that one commander that was constantly frustrated. He would have to wait for his side to get some steam engines to actually have a chance.

Steam power on ships is a massive tactical and strategic advancement. It mirrors the XX century motorized force in how much of a boost it is.
It is not an "I win" button, you can always mess up, but the people fighting steamships have to get inventive to lose a battle to sail-powered ones.
As far as I know, it only happened once, in history.
Also, it is not like the French and the Spaniards were all that bad. Yes, the revolution did remove a bunch of experienced commanders from the ranks, but those that remained know what they were doing.
The sailors were not stellar but certainly not Russians at Tsushima level of incompetence.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Competence and good leadership trumps technological advantage, but only to a point.
In the example, I gave if Nelson had to face steam-powered ships (well there wouldn't be a Trafalgar because he could not intercept Villeneuve and Gravina) his earlier battles would not be victories.
If his enemy can always run away from him Nelson would be a footnote in the history book of that one commander that was constantly frustrated. He would have to wait for his side to get some steam engines to actually have a chance.

This is an optimistic interpretation. Of course, we saw in History that it isn't that correct, for example with foot infantry completely outmaneuvering armoured forces in the Iran/Iraq war. If the enemy is theoretically able to run away, it doesn't give them constant initative, it makes grabbing the initiative more difficult and time-consuming but you will still be able to use geography and politics to achieve your goals if needed and put the enemy in a situation where they want or need to fight. The forces with the helicopters or the planes do not win all the time, by very far as we see with alarming regularity. Or, say, electric submarines which are still very much considered as highly dangerous despite their inability to hold a similar cruise speed compared to nuclear boats or surface ships.

So, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment and I would very much prefer to have strong communication and recon assets than a faster ship, for wars are won and lost by human beings themselves before their are decided by the performance of their weapons.

 

[Marek_Gutkowski]

This is an optimistic interpretation. Of course, we saw in History that it isn't that correct, for example with foot infantry completely outmaneuvering armoured forces in the Iran/Iraq war. If the enemy is theoretically able to run away, it doesn't give them constant initative, it makes grabbing the initiative more difficult and time-consuming but you will still be able to use geography and politics to achieve your goals if needed and put the enemy in a situation where they want or need to fight. The forces with the helicopters or the planes do not win all the time, by very far as we see with alarming regularity. Or, say, electric submarines which are still very much considered as highly dangerous despite their inability to hold a similar cruise speed compared to nuclear boats or surface ships.

The Iran-Iraq war example is interesting because it actually illustrates how foot infantry was unable to exploit the victories it did score.
It was an 8-year-old stalemate. Started with a terribly inept Iraqi offensive that was pushed back by Iranians that had inferior numbers, then Iraqi tried again learning from their past mistakes and calling it a victory when they reached pre-war borders.( a gross oversimplification) I would rather point to the Toyota Wars where light infantry that was motorized scored an unprecedented victory over heavier mechanized force.

A far better example of foot infantry outmaneuvering mechanized forces in the early stages of the Korean War.

So, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment and I would very much prefer to have strong communication and recon assets than a faster ship, for wars are won and lost by human beings themselves before they are decided by the performance of their weapons.

You present a false dichotomy.
You can put a 1790's steam engine on a ship, you are making not a wireless telegraph in 1790.

But I do not disagree that having better communications than your enemy wins wars.

 

[<Reaper>666]

The Iran-Iraq war example is interesting because it actually illustrates how foot infantry was unable to exploit the victories it did score.
It was an 8-year-old stalemate. Started with a terribly inept Iraqi offensive that was pushed back by Iranians that had inferior numbers, then Iraqi tried again learning from their past mistakes and calling it a victory when they reached pre-war borders.( a gross oversimplification) I would rather point to the Toyota Wars where light infantry that was motorized scored an unprecedented victory over heavier mechanized force.

A far better example of foot infantry outmaneuvering mechanized forces in the early stages of the Korean War.


You present a false dichotomy.
You can put a 1790's steam engine on a ship, you are making not a wireless telegraph in 1790.

But I do not disagree that having better communications than your enemy wins wars.

One should also take into account context of disruptive technology in armaments being placed in the conflict zones where base tech is much lower, hence case of Toyota Wars or Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Toyotas were means of transportation enabling rapid manouver on the battlefield, while ATGMs used en masse in the context of the quality of the enemys battleforce in the theathre and also their expectations, combined with skilled use of terrain, proved that conventional combined arms force can be effectively attrited, paradoxically you have seen that in the ongoing conflicts on the Middle East and North Africa. Afghanistan shown how addition of one technologically advanced combat system (ie. Stinger MANPAD) can effectively constrain enemy movements for example.
In both cases neither system become decisive weapon that changed course of the conflict, but gave ability to shape the battlefield more to the users need.
While analysing Iran/Iraq War one also should take into account relavitve technological parity and lack of institutional experience for waging large scale conventional conflict, especially with severely underdeveloped own defense industry, which ended with almost decade long stelemate, starting with mass manouvers conducted with combined arms formations and simultanous air assaults, to recreation of World War I with then modern arms, when core trained cadre and much of military hardware being depleted.

 

[Marek_Gutkowski]

@<Reaper>666 you are confusing the time line. Iraq started with WWII tactics then reverted to positional war then at the end of it conducted air ground assaults.
Iraqi army got better as the war progressed. For a certain value of better, true. But better.

As for the rest yes you are correct.

 

[<Reaper>666]

@<Reaper>666 you are confusing the time line. Iraq started with WWII tactics then reverted to positional war then at the end of it conducted air ground assaults.
Iraqi army got better as the war progressed. For a certain value of better, true. But better.

As for the rest yes you are correct.

Not air assault but air campaing, my mistake.

 

[Marek_Gutkowski]

Not air assault but air campaing, my mistake.

The less said about Iraqi AF the better.

But do you have your own contribition to the thread?