Command, Control, Communication, Electricity, 1917

Reported in Scientific American, this Week in World War I: March 17, 1917

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Armies in the First World War were vast compared with armies in preceding wars. The telephone, telegraph and the appearance of effective wireless radio sets were replacing older communication methods. The article in Scientific American from March 17, 1917, says:

“With an army strung out over miles of irregular trenches prompt communication by the older method is obviously impossible, although special instructions carried by fast motorcycles have been found greatly superior to the old horse-mounted messengers; but where rapid communication with the commanders of long lines of trenches, and numerous widely scattered batteries of guns, is necessary something vastly more prompt and certain is required, and in this emergency recourse is had to the telephone, which has proved to be indispensable. By means of telephones, operated through heavily insulated wires that can be run rapidly from point to point, resting directly upon the ground without any supports or elaborate fixtures, orders may be transmitted along miles of trenches within a few minutes, where flags could not be seen, and where messengers even on the fastest motorcycles would require hours, even if they got through safely at all, thus enabling rapid cooperative action to be taken, or special advances organized and properly supported both by troops and guns.”

A German field telephone setup—portable of course—from 1914. Credit: Scientific American, December 19, 1914


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.


Artillery, though, frequently cut telephone wires, so “runners” carrying messages back and forth were widely used. As warfare became more mobile late in the war, static telephone lines became less useful, while radios were becoming more portable. (Carrier pigeons, it should be noted, remained useful until well after the Second World War.)

 

 

 

 

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914–1918 on communication during the First World War. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

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