New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Realities of War, 1915

As the Great War ran into the new year, assumptions about how the fighting would be conducted were dispelled

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

There were no longer any illusions that the war could be over by Christmas. Shortages of war supplies were acutely felt by the military, civilians were beginning to feel the pinch of wartime austerity. With the entry of the Ottoman Empire and Italy to the war (on opposite sides), it had become vast, all-encompassing, and immensely destructive.

On the battlefield, poison chroline gas began to be used on a wide scale. Initially it was successful but soon its effectiveness was blunted by workable gas masks. Artillery had proven itself as a potent force in the opening weeks of the war; but as troops dug themselves deeper into trenches, larger and more guns firing more shells became necessary to achieve any success. One persistant idea to counter heavy casualties on the battlefield was to somehow use heavy steel armor to protect troops. Armored cars could be useful, but it was not until September 1916 that tanks were deployed. Even if some weapons came from the forefront of science, sometimes the war was fought on a much more primitive level with clubs and rocks.

Reconnaissance had been given hi-tech wings and eyes with the airplane and the camera; captive balloons performed some of the same functions more cheaply. Traditional jobs such as transport and supply struggled to keep up with the urgent demands for moving vast armies and keeping them supplied.


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.


Retaining men willing to fight became critical for waging war. One tactic for boosting morale was to award bravery medals, but it could be overused: the Germans awarded over five million iron crosses during the war, or one for every third soldier.

For a more complete look at the war, you can purchase the entire Archive of Scientific American from 1914-1918 at at  https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/

Dan Schlenoff was a contributing editor at Scientific American and edited the 50, 100 and 150 Years Ago column for one seventh of the magazine's history.

More by Dan Schlenoff
Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 5This article was published with the title “The Realities of War, 1915” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 5 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican052015-6oKwwER1JmR3jSTL2qV3MB

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe