DOCSLIB.ORG

Weapons of World War I Max Campbell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Weapons of World War I Max Campbell Weapons of World War I Max Campbell Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………. Page 3 Chapter 1: Submarines……………………………………………………Page 4 Chapter 2: Tanks…………………………………………………………..Page 7 Chapter 3: Gas…………………………………………………………….Page 9 Chapter 4: Aircraft………………………………………………………Page 13 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..Page 16 Works Cited………………………………………………………………Page 17 Images Cited……………………………………………………………...Page 18 2 Introduction For my expert project I chose to study weapons of World War I. I chose my topic because I thought the war was not talked about as much as the other wars. At first I thought I did not have a connection with World War I, but then I learned that my great-great grandfather served in the war. World wars are interesting to me because they are long and have to have detail to explain what happened. When I started exploring this topic I had many big questions. What impact did World War I have on the world today? How would World War I be different nowadays? How did different countries' technology affect the outcome of the war? I learned so much information about the weapons of World War I. The weapons of World War I changed the strategies of fighting and combat because of the advancements in technology which allowed for more effective war tactics. 3 Chapter 1: Submarines The very first submarines were made before World War I. Cornelis Drebble invented the first navigable submarine in 1620, while working for the English Royal Navy. He built two more submarines and all three were successful. He took King James I under the Thames River in 1626. Eventually, submarines would change the outcome of World War I and change modern day technology. The United Kingdom created the first submarines for warfare. The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom had the best submarines in 1914 because they were the first made and the most armoured. UK submarines were some of the first submarines to go out to sea. The UK invented the Dreadnought, ​ ​ which changed the war because it was heavily armoured and took great power to sink. The UK helped the war advance by making multiple new submarines. This gave allied countries advantages, but also made the war longer and harder. With submarines, countries had to fight on water as well as fight on land. The Germans invented the concept of submarine warfare, even though at the beginning of the war the Germans were the most hesitant to make submarines. They thought submarines were too fragile on the surface and too slow submerged to attack enemy war ships. However, the Germans had the best submarines by the end of the war. They also had the most submarines. The German submarines were very thick and armoured. They were bigger and carried more people. German 4 submarines could also stay underwater for longer periods of time. The Germans decided to use submarines not just to attack war ships, but also to sink civilian and merchant ships. Eventually this led the U.S. into the war. The Germans and their use of submarines changed the war and changed technology today. Other countries made submarines as well. For example, the Tennessee Class ​ was the best American class of submarines. The Electric Boat Company was commissioned to make six more submarines after the US Navy saw their prototypes. Tennessee Class U.S.A. was the last submarine built in America during ​ ​ ​ ​ World War I. At the same time, the Japanese had very powerful vessels. They were also very heavy. The French would put very powerful guns on their ships. With each country making modifications to submarine design their changes were all important in the war. Submarines were designed to carry various amounts of people. The Moeda ​ Class complemented 1,053. This means it could carry over one thousand people on ​ board. The Chuthum Class only complemented 490. Even though submarines ​ ​ could carry various amounts of people most carried enough to also make transportation of troops easier. Submarines were built with various amounts of weight. Submarines could weigh up to 50,000 pounds. The Fuso Class, made in Japan, was 29,880 tons on its ​ ​ own. With people and weapons it weighed 36,500 tons. The weight of the submarine was important to keep it balanced and stable. Submarines could have different weapons on them. Some used guns. For example, the Pennsylvania Class U.S.A. had triple turrets on it. The Lion Gambetta ​ ​ ​ Class, built in France, had 194mm guns on it. There were also new weapons made ​ just for submarines: torpedos. Robert Whitehead invented the first torpedo named 5 the Whitehead Torpedo. Some submarines used the Whitehead Torpedo, which was ​ ​ ​ ​ powered by gas. The weapons on the submarines were important so they could fight back. World War I saw big advancements in weapons and armour of naval submarines. 6 Chapter 2: Tanks The use of tanks changed throughout World War I. Prior to the development of tanks European militaries designed a type of armoured vehicle that could transport soldiers. These armoured cars were lighter than tanks and they were effective before tanks entered the war. Ernest Suinton had the idea of tanks in WWI. Tanks were a huge advantage to warfare because they could also go over small trenches. The tanks were used to kill people in the trenches. Tanks were used in a different way than initially expected. Tanks were initially heavy and slow. There were tanks that were 14 tons. The maximum number of people in tanks was 5-10, and they could only go 5-10 mile per hour (mph). The British demanded the tanks were no slower than four mph. Because of their size, tanks were mainly used to wreck structures instead of transporting people. The French and US both had tanks in World War I. The French started making their own type of tank not knowing the British were also making tanks too. The French developed a powerful tank called the Canon de 75ML that they thought would help them win the war because it was so powerful and strong. The American Halt was a small powerful tank that was made for heavy artillery. Other countries began to develop powerful tanks too. The Germans were also creating a powerful tank called the MKIV. The MKIV and MKV 7 had guns on the front and right or left, sometimes both. This was a new development in tank weaponry. The MKV was classed as a male because the guns on this tank shot much larger ammunition than the machine guns found on female classed tanks. The MKIV and the MKV made a huge difference in the war. The UK invented the Big and Small Willy which was one of the best tanks in the war. The UK made the Big Willy in secret so the Germans did not find out. The UK wanted 150 of the Big Willy tanks made. There was a prototype of the Big Willy called the Small Willy. The Big Willy met all the requests for the UK. It had a new track system that allowed it to cross wider trenches. The Big Willy was so powerful and strong which made it the best tank in WWI. Some militaries added guns on to trains at the beginning of the war. Trains were commonly used in WWI. While adding cannons on to trains came first, adding cannons on to tanks was easier and more efficient. Tanks were then some of the best weapons at the time. The combination of tanks with cannon ammunition was very powerful. The shells of the ammunition were very powerful. Special ammunition had to be made for tank cannons because of their size. They had cannons that could shoot 10,170 yards. Tank cannon ammunition was dangerous, but very effective because it was very destructive. 8 Chapter 3: Gas The French originally came up with the idea of using gas as a weapon, but the Germans are credited for experimenting and creating gas for warfare. In 1914 Fritz Haber began studying deadly gases. The German companies were not allowed to use the word gas so they used the term accessory. Even the Germans were not ready for the power of gas. By introducing chemical warfare, war would change forever. On January 31, 1915 the Germans used tear gas for the first time. Later that year, they launched 150 tons of chlorine gas on the French army. French sentrys noticed a yellow gas coming toward them. The French thought the Germans were using a smoke screen at first. As the gas covered the French soldiers and moved into the trenches, two divisions of French soldiers were decimated. The German soldiers were so shocked, they failed to take full advantage of the break in the line. The world had just started to realize the effects of gas as a weapon. Germans started evolving the ways to carry and use gas throughout the war. Enemies would crawl towards the opposing military lines, put canisters of gas on the ground and roll them towards their enemy. They often had a timed release, similar to a hand grenade. Throwing gas grenades was invented shortly after gas 9 canisters. The British once threw gas grenades in the line of the wind to hit the Germans, but the wind changed directions and killed 2,000 British soldiers. Militaries began using gas shells instead of using hand grenades because they could send them further away from their own lines, eventually even dropping them out of aircraft. Gas shells are big shells that would go in tanks or cannons and could hold gas. Chlorine gas was a very popular gas in World War I because it was very effective for killing soldiers quickly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Should the United States Develop and Employ Strategic Information Warfare Capabilities?
    Should the United States develop and employ strategic information warfare capabilities? Information technologies have transformed U.S. and, indeed, international society. The ways we socialize, educate and inform ourselves, engage in business and practice our religions have been changed, and in many cases now rely, on digital information and communication. Can warfare—the defense and promotion of our national security and interests—be exempt under any circumstances from developing and employing the latest information strategies? Is this even a choice in the 21st century, much less a hard choice? Information warfare has been variously defined by different analysts but a standard general definition, as provided by the U.S. Air Force is “any action to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy the enemy’s information and its functions; protecting ourselves against the actions and exploiting our own information operations.” The goal of information war is now frequently described as “information dominance.” (1) Major General Kenneth Minihan, stated, “information dominance is not ‘my pile of information is bigger than yours’…It is a way of increasing our capabilities by using that information to make right decisions, (and) apply them faster than the enemy can. It is a way to alter the enemy’s entire perception of reality. It is a method of using all the information at our disposal to predict (and affect) what happens tomorrow before the enemy even jumps out of bed and thinks about what to do today.” (2) Pro: Information warfare is not a new concept that arose with the Internet. Information has always been a decisive factor in deciding the victory or defeat of one military force over another.
    [Show full text]
  • Unlocking NATO's Amphibious Potential
    November 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE J.D. WILLIAMS, GENE GERMANOVICH, STEPHEN WEBBER, GABRIELLE TARINI Unlocking NATO’s Amphibious Potential Lessons from the Past, Insights for the Future orth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members maintain amphibious capabilities that provide versatile and responsive forces for crisis response and national defense. These forces are routinely employed in maritime Nsecurity, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterterrorism, stability operations, and other missions. In addition to U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Navy forces, the Alliance’s amphibious forces include large ships and associated landing forces from five nations: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Each of these European allies—soon to be joined by Turkey—can conduct brigade-level operations, and smaller elements typically are held at high readiness for immediate response.1 These forces have been busy. Recent exercises and operations have spanned the littorals of West and North Africa, the Levant, the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Given NATO’s ongoing concerns over Russia’s military posture and malign behavior, allies with amphibious capabilities have also been exploring how these forces could contribute to deterrence or, if needed, be employed as part of a C O R P O R A T I O N combined and joint force in a conflict against a highly some respects, NATO’s ongoing efforts harken back to the capable nation-state. Since 2018, NATO’s headquarters Cold War, when NATO’s amphibious forces routinely exer- and various commands have undertaken initiatives and cised in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic as part of a convened working groups to advance the political intent broader strategy to deter Soviet aggression.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A. Navy Activity Descriptions
    Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 APPENDIX A Navy Activity Descriptions Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix A Navy Activity Descriptions Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing TABLE OF CONTENTS A. NAVY ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................ A-1 A.1 Description of Sonar, Munitions, Targets, and Other Systems Employed in Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Events .................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Sonar Systems and Other Acoustic Sources ......................................................... A-1 A.1.2 Munitions .............................................................................................................. A-7 A.1.3 Targets ................................................................................................................ A-11 A.1.4 Defensive Countermeasures ............................................................................... A-13 A.1.5 Mine Warfare Systems ........................................................................................ A-13 A.1.6 Military Expended Materials ............................................................................... A-16 A.2 Training Activities ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil War and Early Submarine Warfare, 1863 Introduction
    1 The Civil War and early submarine warfare, 1863 Introduction Civil War combat foreshadowed modern warfare with the introduction of the machine gun, repeater rifles, and trench warfare, and the use of trains to quickly move troops. However, one of the most celebrated tactical innovations of the war was the use of submarines by the Confederate Navy. An early example of this type of naval ingenuity was the CSS Pioneer developed by Horace Lawson Hunley, James McClintock, and Baxter Watson. The Confederates were forced to abandon the Pioneer during testing for fear of capture but she eventually found her way into Union hands, where the submersible was examined and sketched by Ensign David Stauffer of the USS Alexandria. Following the war, the Pioneer was scrapped for metal. Most accounts of actual Civil War submarine combat focus on the sinking of the USS Housatonic by the CSS H. L. Hunley in February 1864, but few mention an earlier but unsuccessful attack by a cigar-shaped vessel, the CSS David, in October 1863. This letter from Union sailor Lewis H. West is a rare eyewitness account of that incident, one of the earliest submarine attacks in naval history. On his first night on board the USS New Ironsides, West experienced the David’s attack. Stealthily cutting through Charleston Bay almost entirely submerged, the David crew attempted to explode a torpedo (what we now refer to as a mine) and in the process nearly destroyed their own vessel. According to West, the “nondescript craft” barely damaged the New Ironsides, and divers found “that not a plate or bolt is started.” The CSS David survived the explosion and the small-arms fire that raked the hull.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective on the So-Called Revolution in Military Affairs, 2000-2020
    SECURITY, STRATEGY, AND ORDER A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE SO-CALLED REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS, 2000-2020 MICHAEL O’HANLON A RESTROSPECTIVE ON THE SO-CALLED REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS, 2000-2020 MICHAEL O’HANLON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 This paper revisits the debate that raged in American defense circles in the 1990s over whether a revolution in military affairs was imminent in the early parts of the 21st century. It also seeks to establish a benchmark, and reaffirm as well as refine a methodology, for forecasting future changes in military-related technologies by examining what has transpired in the first two decades of the 21st century. Taking this approach helps improve and validate the methodology that is employed in my forthcoming book, The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War Over Small Stakes (2019). A subsequent paper seeks to extrapolate a similar analysis out to 2040, gauging the potential for major breakthroughs in military technology and associated operational concepts over the next two decades. Such analysis is of critical importance for evaluating American and allied military and strategic options relevant to great-power war and deterrence in the years ahead. The paper’s category-by-category examination of military technology mirrors the approach that I employed in a book published in 2000, Technological Change and the Future of Warfare (though it really should have been entitled, The So-Called Revolution in Military Affairs, because I was largely challenging the then-popular notion that a military revolution of historic importance was afoot). Much of the research foundation of that book was the study of a list of 29 different types of technologies in an attempt to gauge which might undergo revolutionary change by 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Warfare
    Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 23:51 30 May 2016 Cyber Warfare This book is a multidisciplinary analysis of cyber warfare, featuring contribu- tions by leading experts from a mixture of academic and professional backgrounds. Cyber warfare, meaning interstate cyber aggression, is an increasingly important emerging phenomenon in international relations, with state- orchestrated (or apparently state- orchestrated) computer network attacks occur- ring in Estonia (2007), Georgia (2008) and Iran (2010). This method of waging warfare – given its potential to, for example, make planes fall from the sky or cause nuclear power plants to melt down – has the capacity to be as devastating as any conventional means of conducting armed conflict. Every state in the world now has a cyber- defence programme and over 120 states also have a cyber- attack programme. While the amount of literature on cyber warfare is growing within disciplines, our understanding of the subject has been limited by a lack of cross- disciplinary engagement. In response, this book, drawn from the fields of computer science, military strategy, international law, political science and military ethics, provides a critical overview of cyber warfare for those approaching the topic from what- ever angle. Chapters consider the emergence of the phenomena of cyber warfare in international affairs; what cyber- attacks are from a technological standpoint; the extent to which cyber- attacks can be attributed to state actors; the strategic value and danger posed by cyber conflict; the legal regulation of cyber- attacks, both as international uses of force and as part of an ongoing armed conflict, and the ethical implications of cyber warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge
    Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge Andrew Krepinevich, Barry Watts & Robert Work 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge by Andrew Krepinevich Barry Watts Robert Work Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2003 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent public policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking about defense planning and investment strategies for the 21st century. CSBA’s analytic-based research makes clear the inextricable link between defense strategies and budgets in fostering a more effective and efficient defense, and the need to transform the US military in light of the emerging military revolution. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundation, corporate and individual grants and contributions, and government contracts. 1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW Suite 912 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 http://www.csbaonline.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... I I. NEW CHALLENGES TO POWER PROJECTION.................................................................. 1 II. PROSPECTIVE US AIR FORCE FAILURE POINTS........................................................... 11 III. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND ASSURED ACCESS: A CRITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .29 IV. THE ARMY AND THE OBJECTIVE FORCE ..................................................................... 69 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 93 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the Cold War, the United States defense posture called for substantial forces to be located overseas as part of a military strategy that emphasized deterrence and forward defense. Large combat formations were based in Europe and Asia. Additional forces—both land-based and maritime—were rotated periodically back to the rear area in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Submarine Warfare Today
    Jacobson 205 Chapter VIII The Law of Submarine Warfare Today by Jon L. Jacobson* Introduction he roles of military submarines have evolved throughout the twentieth T century. In wartime, these roles have included coastal defense, harassment of enemy fleets, and, especially in World War II, hunting and destroying the seaborne commerce that supported the enemy's war efforts. Today, two principal roles for u.s. submarines, at least in any future war with the Soviet Union, are probably as anti-submarine weapons (attack submarines) and as strategic weapons platforms (ballistic missile submarines). Other missions, however, could include coastal defense, attacks on the enemy's surface fleet, projection of force ashore, and commerce warfare.1 The laws of war have never been comfortable with the submarine's unique combination of stealth and vulnerability. As will be explained below, it is this peculiar mix of strength and weakness that can be blamed as the root cause of the legal dilemma, particularly as it relates to the submarine's role as a commerce raider. The legal responses to this twentieth-century weapons platform have ranged from early proposals for its abolition to justification of its use under the rules of reprisal to tolerance of it as an effective war machine with characteristics that regrettably require some adjustments in the traditional laws of war. The U.s. Navy's new Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 9) includes references to the laws of naval warfare that specifically address the submarine weapons system and also rules that apply, or can apply, to submarines and their roles in wartime.
    [Show full text]
  • Submarine Warfare, Fiction Or Reality? John Charles Cheska University of Massachusetts Amherst
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 1962 Submarine warfare, fiction or reality? John Charles Cheska University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Cheska, John Charles, "Submarine warfare, fiction or reality?" (1962). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 1392. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/1392 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. bmbb ittmtL a zia a musv John C. Chaaka, Jr. A.B. Aaharat Collag* ThMis subnlttwi to tho Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of tha requlraaanta for tha degraa of Master of Arta Uoiwaity of Maaaaohuaetta Aaherat August, 1962 a 3, v TABU OF CONTENTS Hm ramp _, 4 CHAPTER I Command Structure and Policy 1 II Material III Operations 28 I? The Submarine War ae the Public Saw It V The Number of U-Boate Actually Sunk V VI Conclusion 69 APPENDXEJB APPENDIX 1 Admiralty Organisation in 1941 75 2 German 0-Boat 76 3 Effects of Strategic Bombing on Late Model 78 U-Boat Productions and Operations 4 U-Boats Sunk Off the United States Coaat 79 by United States Forces 5 U-Boats Sunk in Middle American Zone 80 inr United StatM ?bkii 6 U-Bosta Sunk Off South America 81 by United States Forces 7 U-Boats Sunk in the Atlantio in Area A 82 1 U-Boats Sunk in the Atlentio in Area B 84 9A U-Boats Sunk Off European Coast 87 by United States Forces 9B U-Bnata Sunk in Mediterranean Sea by United 87 States Forces TABLE OF CONTENTS klWDU p«g« 10 U-Boats Sunk by Strategic Bombing 38 by United States Amy Air Foreee 11 U-Boats Sunk by United States Forces in 90 Cooperation with other Nationalities 12 Bibliography 91 LIST OF MAPS AND GRAPHS MAP NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of Episode 16, “Concealing and Revealing Clandestine Military Capabilities” Originally Released on June 22, 2021
    Transcript of Episode 16, “Concealing and Revealing Clandestine Military Capabilities” Originally released on June 22, 2021 [Note: This is a rough transcript of the audio recording, based on digital transcription and human review.] [00:00:00] One, two, three go. Morgan Kaplan: [00:00:18] Hello, and welcome to International Security “Off the Page.” On today's episode, we are talking about when and why states reveal their clandestine military capabilities. We'll also discuss the role of the private sector in industry and helping develop these capabilities as well as concealing them. I'm Morgan Kaplan, the Executive Editor of International Security. And we'll be speaking with Austin Long, the author of a recent IS article with Brendan Greene titled “Conceal or Reveal? Managing Clandestine Military Capabilities in Peacetime Competition.” And a little later, we'll go off the page with E.J. Herold, who is the Executive Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-Americas and was [00:01:00] previously the NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment. Benn Craig: [00:01:09] Belfercenter.org/offthepage is where you can find past episodes as well as supplemental reading materials. It is also where you can subscribe to “Off the Page” on your favorite podcast platform. Morgan Kaplan: [00:01:17] Austin Long is Vice Deputy Director for Strategic Stability in the Joint Staff J5 at the Department of Defense. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views or policy of the Joint Staff, the Department of Defense or any other entity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Five Revolutions: Examining Defense Innovation in the Indo-Pacific Region Tate Nurkin Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
    Atlantic Council SCOWCROFT CENTER FOR STRATEGY AND SECURITY The Five Revolutions: Examining Defense Innovation in the Indo-Pacific Region Tate Nurkin Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Forward Defense Forward Defense (FD) helps the United States and its allies and partners contend with great-power competitors and maintain favorable balances of power. This new practice area in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security produces Forward-looking analyses of the trends, technologies, and concepts that will define the future of warfare, and the alliances needed for the 21st century. Through the futures we forecast, the scenarios we wargame, and the analyses we produce, Forward Defense develops actionable strategies and policies for deterrence and defense, while shaping US and allied operational concepts and the role of defense industry in addressing the most significant military challenges at the heart of great-power competition. With Thanks To This project was conducted under the supervision of FD Deputy Director Clementine Starling and Assistant Director Christian Trotti, and was enabled by research support from FD interns Olivia Popp and Julia Siegel. The Five Revolutions: Examining Defense Innovation in the Indo-Pacific Region Tate Nurkin ISBN-13: 978-1-61977-142-0 Cover: The US Air Force Thunderbirds perform during the Thunder and Lightning Over Arizona at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, March 23, 2019.
    [Show full text]