Who has the most advanced technology in WW1?

Who has the most advanced technology in WW1?

Other urls found in this thread:

panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why did engineers keep building tanks that look like boxes until the late 40s? Was it so hard to understand that a bullet penetrates an inclined plate with more difficulty?

Germans in chemistry, British in everything else. Also the A7V was a piece of shit

And the French in Surrendering

I guess they faced other problems and were happy it moved forward

French in aeronautics though. And in tank design in a way.

>British in everything else.

>Needed to capture a german gas mask to figure out effective gasmask design
>Tommy Helmets
>Persistence in Direct Fire artillery

It did it's job,at least it had a decent number of crew members,nice equipment,mediocre armour and boosted moral,at least it wasn't mass-produced only to get stuck in the mud or picked off by artillery,as the MK I. Also what other thing was it then to put a machine gun team behind Metall plates,speaking about British female tanks? But yes,everything else was crapp,if you ignore the slightly higher speed. The Germans used modified MK I more often anyway.

The B-17 bomber from WW2 also was a fortress and couldn't use it's firepower adequately, but at least the construction is impressive and shows that the engineers behind it intended to create more than a rolling cannon.

>British in everything else
>German doctor and engineer meme
Teaboo spotted.

The Brits were most advanced in nothing at all too be honest,the French and Germans were ahead,the Brits just üproduced famous multi-purpose equipment en masse and made propaganda en masse. Now,what they produced wasn't bad,I talk about Lee-Enfield Rifles,Louis Machine Guns,MK I Tank, Mils Grenades, Helmets etc.,but that doesn't tell us anything about the developmental superiority.

Brits aced everyone in the navy department though.

Turkey
Gifted by KARA BOGA

I would argue that the Germans had somewhat better ships,but of course the ginormous expertise, ressources, plannning and time, together with long tradition and cultural affiliation with the sea and mass of potential seamen or simply the size of the fleet and the number of harbours it was able to utilise(Let's not forget the oil) it could make up for that several and multiple times over and over again.

But still, if the German Naval Command came to execute an operation in which both shock power of the submarines and firepower of their battleships in an indirect confrontation with a large fleet of the British Navy, using masses of light cruisers and destroyers to overwhelm them, the Germans could have ruled the sea during WW1 and even break the blockade in the North Sea, Africa and do the same with the British, but it didn't.

No, German ships had better cannons, armour and communication,but everyone had dreadnoughts anyway.

We are speaking about the technological rank, not the way of it's usage is of main importance, but rather how much it was ahead of it's time.

A very dry joke.
Still the Fokker ruled the skies.

Better question: who used them better?

Sloping armor and making it thicker is literally same shit, weight-wise. Draw it on paper and you'll realize why.
Sloping was used because it could cause a ricochet, not because it improved protection.

*not because it improved protection
DURRR, meant armor thickness

Unironically the french
>most advanced tanks
>most advanced airplanes
>most advanced small arms (first to field light machine guns, actually mass issued semi-automatic rifles)

The French 75mm was the best field gun in the world at the start of the war, so they had that at least.

>Now,what they produced wasn't bad,I talk about Lee-Enfield Rifles,Louis Machine

Both were American designs adopted by the UK.

too bad they were only useful during the marne

>Sloping armor and making it thicker is literally same shit, weight-wise.

No, the same thickness and weight of armor plate has a greater effective or line-of-sight thickness then the same armor plate when placed vertically.

panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

You what?
Field artillery was the largest arm of artillery through the whole war. The creeping barrage was always dominated by field artillery and right up until 1918 was the only thing better than a mortar that could be brought up for infantry support. It may not have had the arc to get into trenches that the howitzer did but it was still an important multi-purpose gun.

>field artillery was the largest arm of artillery throught the entire war
pieces above 75mm outnumbered the 75's by the end of the war, so no