Industry in Wartime, 1916

A look at manufacturing, much of devoted to filling the needs of the belligerants of the war

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Editor’s note (4/2/2017): This week marks the 100-year anniversary of the U.S. entry into the First World War. Scientific American, founded in 1845, spent the war years covering the monumental innovations that changed the course of history, from the first tanks and aerial combat to the first widespread attacks with chemical weapons. To mark the centennial, we are republishing the article below and many others. For full access to our archival coverage of the Great War sign up for an All Access subscription today.

By 1916 the Great War was being waged by the most advanced industrial nations on the planet—who were becoming increasingly desperate as their casualties soared. Research and production resources were hijacked by the urgent need to provide better weapons and more ammunition, and all of the other military supplies needed by the vast armies.

Some numbers tell the tale of how economies and societies were shifted over to a war footing: German production of explosives rose from 14,400 tons to 518,400 tons between 1914 and 1918. Manufacture of machine guns in the five original major belligerants rose from 4,307 a year to 649,216 a year during the war. In France between 1915 and 1918 the munitions workforce increased from 50,000 to 1,700,000—420,000 of whom were women, as 44 percent of the male population had been called for military service.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The United States was technically neutral, but was deeply involved in the world economy, supplying the belligerent nations themselves (mostly on the Allied side) with weapons, food and supplies. Even activities that do not seem at first glance to be military in nature were tied to war work: The U.S. Bureau of Mines leased uranium oxide mines in Colorado to produce radioactive sources for x-ray machines—very useful for finding bullets and shell fragments in the bodies of wounded soldiers.

Here is a brief tour through the year 1916. There are many more images in the Scientific American Archive at ScientificAmerican.com/magazine/sa

[Sources for statistics: Ioannis-Dionysios Salavrakos in International Journal of History and Philosophical Research, Vol.2, No. 1., March 2014 (explosives); “Race to the Front,” by Kevin D. Stubbs (machine guns); encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/france (munitions workforce).]

Scientific American Magazine Vol 314 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Industry in Wartime, 1916” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 314 No. 2 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican022016-a2WBukEDn9qdy4MINISgL

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe