During the inter-war period, British technological development fell behind competing nations due to economic constraints, poor assumptions developed by senior military leaders, as well as contributing strategic and political factors. Historical examples suggest Great Britain emerged as a leader in terms of technological innovation as it exited War World One . The country was arguably, at the time, a leader in technology development regarding all three of its services but entered World War Two woefully unprepared . In WWI, the Army successfully utilized an armored force to penetrate an enemy defense, but failed to improve this technology to exploit its initial success . Naval leaders understood the necessity of the aircraft carrier, but
…show more content…
Yes, these leaders could argue they were following the national policy, and constrained through financial means, but that shouldn’t excuse scenarios in which post analysis of war world one performance was practically buried so as not upset the status-que . Many in the army embraced old customs, such as the regimental system, and practically scorned those with progressive ideas and innovations regarding their professions. For example, Liddell Hart and associates were met with heavy resistance through their efforts to modernize and implement a mechanized and armored force . However, these innovators were typically denied promotion to the senior senior ranks necessary to implement true technological reforms . Naval leaders also miscalculated the use of new technology. As an example, British naval officers underestimated the effectiveness a subsurface threat may offer, and also relied on the restrictions placed on this type of warfare within the postwar treaties . Therefore the use of the submarine and associated sonar technology was not embraced until British commerce was being preyed upon by the German U-boat threat. Finally, the phrase, “the bombers will always get through” may best represent the attitude of senior leadership within the RAF . Consequently, priority was given to the development of fighter
Yes, these leaders could argue they were following the national policy, and constrained through financial means, but that shouldn’t excuse scenarios in which post analysis of war world one performance was practically buried so as not upset the status-que . Many in the army embraced old customs, such as the regimental system, and practically scorned those with progressive ideas and innovations regarding their professions. For example, Liddell Hart and associates were met with heavy resistance through their efforts to modernize and implement a mechanized and armored force . However, these innovators were typically denied promotion to the senior senior ranks necessary to implement true technological reforms . Naval leaders also miscalculated the use of new technology. As an example, British naval officers underestimated the effectiveness a subsurface threat may offer, and also relied on the restrictions placed on this type of warfare within the postwar treaties . Therefore the use of the submarine and associated sonar technology was not embraced until British commerce was being preyed upon by the German U-boat threat. Finally, the phrase, “the bombers will always get through” may best represent the attitude of senior leadership within the RAF . Consequently, priority was given to the development of fighter