Serbia debates Srebrenica apology

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I'll wager some of the best ideas in the world have come while pondering the universe on a porcelain throne.

Which indeed often is much like a war.

[dps]

Aircraft developments in WW1 emphasized speed and maneuverability, when what was needed to further the utility of aircraft was range and carrying capacity.

I'm not sure that I can agree with that.  True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war.  The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure that I can agree with that.  True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war.  The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.

If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range).  Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars.  Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922.  And so forth.

[dps]

I'm not sure that I can agree with that.  True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war.  The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.

If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range).  Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars.  Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922.  And so forth.

My reading hasn't indicated that late WWI large bombers were "unsuccessful" in general.  Sure, there were some unsuccessful designs, but there were unsuccessful fighter designs as well.  What was wrong with the late-war bombers in general was that they were, well, too late.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure that I can agree with that.  True, the popular conception of WWI in the air focuses on fighter aircraft, but by the end of the war there were very large bombers available that had far, far more carrying capacity than anything from before the war.  The aircraft of 1918 were also studier and more reliable than the aircraft of 1914.

If you read aviation technology histories, what you will discover is that, while there were some unsuccessful large bombers built during the war, the greatest advancements during the war came in the areas thought most useful for war (and these were not load nor range).  Aircraft of 1922 were more reliable and sturdy than those of 1918, and this was a period without major wars.  Ditto for aircraft of 1926 compared to 1922.  And so forth.

My reading hasn't indicated that late WWI large bombers were "unsuccessful" in general.  Sure, there were some unsuccessful designs, but there were unsuccessful fighter designs as well.  What was wrong with the late-war bombers in general was that they were, well, too late.

Read some more.  Look at the carrying capacity of bombers like the Handley-Page, Caproni, Gotha, etc - none could carry more than about 500KG of bombs.  That is a pittance.  No aircraft with payloads that small could be used for anything other than maybe mail delivery.  It was in peacetime that the great transport planes were developed.

[Neil]

The Great War brought few improvements to dreadnought technology.