‘The new technology of twentieth century warfare was more effective in the British land campaign of the second world war than the first world war.’
How far do sources E-K support this interpretation of the relative effect to the developing technology of twentieth century warfare?
Explain your answer using the sources as well as your own knowledge. (24 marks)
In this essay I will be comparing sources E-K and how they support the statement of; ‘The new technology of twentieth century warfare was more effective in the British land campaign of the second world war than the first world war.’ In both wars many different technological inventions were used to help within battle. Some key technology aspects were artillery, gas, tanks and planes. Tanks developed massively over years from being very inefficient and breaking down constantly to becoming a key tool in allowing the different sides to win each battle. Planes were also developed over time from the Sopwith camel being made from canvas, wood and piano wire to World War Two being made out of different metals, for example the Spitfire and Hurricanes. From World War One to the Second World War, technology has improved and become greatly more efficient in the early and later years of World War Two. The technology has improved dramatically with new designs and invention to new tactics used in battles.
From source E we can infer that technology was a huge impact in allowing the Allies to win the First World War, this therefore disagrees with the question. In the source it is talking about the new weapons that Haig had developed to help him in making World War One a Win. However from my own knowledge of the technology in world war one I know they had many problems with the tanks. For example many of them would break down during the travel to each battle meaning there was a disadvantage to the Allies as they were losing vital resources for example the Somme. For planes in World War One they were not an effective...