Innovation and transformation concepts

Innovation and Transformation

It is difficult to evaluate a single factor that contributed to the transformation of different militaries in the period from 1915 to 1945. The rhythm of change during this period was impressive, both during the two world wars and in the period between them. For the war period, the states involved generally switched to a war economy, one destined to primarily match the needs of the military. This is why the technological and industrial processes were adapted in that sense and why the war period saw great changes, first of all technologically and, subsequently, in all related areas such as logistical or organizational segments.

On the other hand, the period between the wars was a period during which militarist states, such as Germany and Japan, developed their military capacity with a distinct revisionist direction. This also meant large budgets for military development and transformation.

However, with an overall consideration, it is most likely that the technological modernization can be considered the key factor influencing military transformation during the period from 1915 to 1945. There are several reasons for this, which will be discussed below.

First of all, let the military aviation be considered. In 1915, one of the biggest challenges was the incapacity to discover a successful way of firing through the front propeller

. Several solutions were tried, including adding an additional person on the plane, in charge solely with handling the machine gun. This was solved with the introduction of the interrupter gear in 1915.

It is not less true that strategic or organizational innovation helped the transformation of the military aviation in the analyzed period of time. However, they were always subordinated to the technological advances.

For example, during the 1930s, the chief of staff of the German Luftwaffe proposed that "the decisive weapon of air warfare is the bomber"

. This new tactical approach had come, however, as a result of the new developments in air warfare, which included the creation of new, more competitive bombers. The technological development brought about the strategic and tactical changes.

Similar developments involved other types of weapons. The tanks, for example, first introduced during the First World War, were further developed and technologically improved to fit the new realities that the military would face during the Second World War.

The direct confrontation between the different militaries in the Second World War meant that the rhythm of technological innovation greatly increased. The new type of warfare, including the blitzkrieg that the German army successfully promoted in its campaigns in 1939 and 1940, implied new technologies able to support this new approach. At the same time, the Second World War also saw urban battles, to an unprecedented degree: battles such as Stalingrad or Moscow, as well as London (air battle) meant to technology able to sustain fighting in such an environment.

The technological innovation in the Second World War, decisive in the process of transformation for the military, did not limit itself to the weapons used during that time, but rather included all support, logistical and administrative branches as well. Logistical support, for example, developed new technologies in order to speed supply to the frontline and between the different armies.

Another important aspect worth mentioning is related to the industrial technological development, also secondary to the general military technological developments, but just as important in the process of military transformation. For example, the development of a technological process to make synthetic rubber was one of the key elements that allowed the combatants to replace the natural rubber, usually harvested from East and South East Asia.

The implication of the technological modernization factor is limited for the success and effectiveness of current transformational efforts by the U.S. military. There are several arguments for this. First of all, the challenges and threats have significantly diversified from the period between the two wars. Then, the threats were exclusively state actors and state armies. The instruments to fight against this threat thus implied a technological advantage, essential in obtaining the upper hand in battle.

Nowadays, the threats are much more diverse and less obvious than they were then. Besides certain states, today there are numerous non-state actors that can be identified as potential threats for the national security. In many cases, the technological advance in the military field is not enough to consistently fight against such challenges. Excellent intelligence services and external collaborations may also be required in order to be able to identify potential enemies and successfully fight against them.

Second, the First World War saw most of the nations in battle at that point at the same or a similar technological level. There might be occasional innovations, quickly adopted by the other militaries as well, but, overall, there would be an open field that encouraged technological innovation. This is clearly not the case today: the technological advance of the U.S. military is not contested around the world and its supremacy is obvious.

The transformation today would most likely come from organizational and tactical innovation. As previously mentioned, the current global challenges will imply a new tactical approach, one that will differ from the traditional conventional warfare of the 20th century. This will demand innovation in this field. On the other hand, the U.S. military finds its activity diversified from the traditional warfare activities. One such area that has been added is, for example, the assistance, both technical and assistance for development, which the U.S. military is involved in distributing in some of the conflict areas.