The Birth of the Bazooka (feat. Panzerfaust and Shaped Charges) - WWII mag.July'07

 

'Why Things Work'
The first graphic is all about shaped charge technology. It follows principles that I am trying to make regular in these technology/weapons graphics. That is to say I think it important to introduce the historical context of their use, to mention the scientific breakthrough, to show it in use and to show implications or how to defend against it. I find that explaining the above is alot more important than seeing how big something is or what is inside it. I'm more into 'Why Things Work' than 'How Things Work'.

'Show And Tell'
Some of the issues above are not necessarily things that lend themselves to a graphical approach but they are part of the story and need to be included.

Many information graphic designers shy away from using text in their work - seeing their mission to almost avoid text at all costs. I believe that graphics can only explain so much - as can text - and so we should use both, not allowing either to assume primacy unless the data or narrative demands so.

This contradicts the 'Show, don't Tell' approach. My approach is more 'Show And Tell'. I believe the combined use of graphics and text in close harmony communicates a high resolution of data with highly memorable results. I'll return to this point in a later post as I think there is alot in it.

Editorial Issues
There were a few things I had to leave out of this spread due to space constraints. I would have liked to have mentioned the use of shaped charge explosives against fortifications in the Nazi invasion of Belgium. I would also like to compared the different Allied Bazooka and PIAT.

US and them
It is an ongoing issue to provide a balanced view of the war while fulfilling expectations of a predominantly US readership. If we have not covered any US innovations after a year, we have done something wrong but I think the balance will be OK. The balance in the magazine may slant more US than the final book proposal but I'll decide that when I get to it. I am also aware that some of the magazine readers may already be familiar with the information I am giving them. I hope I can provide some new insights for them or at least give them a new way to explain to others what they already know.

Comments or email welcome
maxgadney@googlemail.com

(I haven't made this email linkable as most people do not use their default-set email programme that pops up when they click a mail address - copy the address into your normal mail programme.

Comments

[rodcorp]

"If we have not covered any US innovations after a year, we have done something wrong but I think the balance will be OK."

Proximity fuses might be a good example. http://www.enginesofinnovation.com/html/proximity_fuse_case_study.HTM

Or, at the macro level, the oft-quoted trope that the US's advantage was out-production via a stronger economic engine/more efficient factories. Not so much a turning point as a gathering-of-momentum, I suppose.

[Max Gadney]

I agree on both counts. I think proximity fuses and especially their use against kamikaze planes are very interesting and I am reearching the nmatter at the moment. And on the second point, I am wondering what the best device is with which to explain the production effort of the US. One idea is to show the difference in engineering between the Thompson M1A1 and the M3 'Grease Gun'. The 'Grease Gun' was not so beatifully made, but like the PPSh-41, it was this fact that enabled it to be mass produced. We will return to this point but anyone wanting to reflect further on this war of attrition angle could do alot worse than read Wartime by Paul Fussell.