WW1 starts with Tanks

[Ohfshkssgb]

World War I got bogged down in very slow moving trench warfare because machine guns and rapid firing artillery. Tanks were invented to break these trenches. But if What if tanks were fully developed already and World War I started with them ? POD is that the Russo Japanese War gets bogged down in trench warfare. Trench Warfare was already present in the war for example at Battle of Hsimucheng. This trench extends from the Yalu river via the outskirts of Shenyang to Port Arthur. This results in a stalemate. In the resulting peace Russia retains exclusive influence in Manchuria along with Port Arthur and Japan gains exclusive influence in Korea. Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 still happen just as OTL. But this time every Superpower races to find a means to break these trenches. All of them find it in Tanks. American doesn't do much because it didn't have any potential land war with another Superpower it could think of. Britain develops the Mark VIII of OTL. France develops the OTL Renault FT which is shared with Russia because of its limited automotive industry. Germany develops the OTL A7V which shared with Austria Hungary because it's own project failed. Italy develops the Fiat 2000 of OTL. Radio is invented along with them in America seperately. But it proliferates to the rest of the world. Portuguese Revolution devolves into civil war in which all of Europe's superpowers intervene. In it all learn crucial lessons in armored warfare. July crisis happens just as OTL resulting World War I.

 

[TDM]

The problem will be the "great powers" will all look at the Russo-Japanese war and say to themselves "that won't happen to us, because of X, Y Z factor". (and frankly there will also be a list of reasons why the Russo-Japanese war won't be like a great power war in Europe anyway)

Trenches were not new, there was trench warfare in the American Civil war, there were trenches in the Crimea. The trick was to go around them, but well what made the western front kind of unique in that regard was the fact they ran from the sea to the mountains so you couldn't go round them you had to go through them.


All sides in Aug 1914 thought that the way you win was to win a quick war. Speed of mobilisation, concentration of force a sudden catastrophic break through with a fast follow up to the opponent's capital or other strategic point was how wars were envisioned to be won. And well tanks that crawl along as 2-3mph and break down after 10-20 miles in the field aren't gong to help with that, (in fact quite the opposite).

Plus you have the issue of technology limiting the functionality of tanks,

Sorry to be a bit more positive towards the idea though, if you can delay WW1 while the combustion engine becomes more and more mainstream and developed maybe mechanised warfare in general will develop and you'll see options open up for armoured vehicles analogous to tanks

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

All sides in Aug 1914 thought that the way you win was to win a quick war. Speed of mobilisation, concentration of force a sudden catastrophic break through with a fast follow up to the opponent's capital or other strategic point was how wars were envisioned to be won. And well tanks that crawl along as 2-3mph and break down after 10-20 miles in the field aren't gong to help with that, (in fact quite the opposite).

Plus you have the issue of technology limit the functionality of tanks,

Sorry to be a bit more positive towards the idea though, if you can delay WW1 while the combustion engine becomes more and more mainstream and develops maybe mechanised warfare in general will develop and you'll see options open up for armoured vehicles analogous to tanks

By the start of WW1 the combustion engine was mainstream, hell, personal cars were a thing since the early 1900s as there were hundreds of car manufacturers in every industrialized country like Britain, France, Germany, the USA etc. Britain was working on armored cars already by 1900 (Motor War Car by Simms)

Perhaps instead of the slow crawlers that were the Marks and A7Vs, the early tanks are more akin to the Panzer I? There were a few 60-80 HP engines already in use by 1914 so the power required is available if not as efficient as the later engines of the 20s and 30s. Fulfilling a recon-fire support role for advancing infantry that could defend against small arms.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Put a Rolls Royce Armoured Car body on the running gear of a Hornsby Artillery Tractor. Job done. However you're not going to get massed ranks of the things in 1914. At most you'd get a company per division for scouting and support. These things are expensive and as yet untested.

 

[TDM]

By the start of WW1 the combustion engine was mainstream, hell, personal cars were a thing since the early 1900s as there were hundreds of car manufacturers in every industrialized country like Britain, France, Germany, the USA etc. Britain was working on armored cars already by 1900 (Motor War Car by Simms)

Right but the development of military doctrine, tactic and the subsequent driving of military systems being developed, tested and adopted doesn't happen in an instant It takes time (years in fact), So the state of the car industry in 1914 is not actaully very relevent to what would be in place in motor pools in 1914.


So take that Motor War Car, not only did it never see service in the conflict is was envisioned for, pretty soon armoured cars themselves didn't look anything like it. And when WW1 came round those armoured cars didn't fill the role they were envisioned for either (particularly in the western front they did better in the east)

Perhaps instead of the slow crawlers that were the Marks and A7Vs, the early tanks are more akin to the Panzer I? There were a few 60-80 HP engines already in use by 1914 so the power required is available if not as efficient as the later engines of the 20s and 30s. Fulfilling a recon-fire support role for advancing infantry that could defend against small arms.

Only it's not just about HP, there might be a 60-80HP engines available in 1914 but is it the same mass as the one in the Pz1, what about the transmission, the tracks, the reliability, the number of personal/crew required to keep the thing running in the field, hell the radio, everything else. can all those other parts do their job and overall make the whole thing?


can you do it at a cost that makes it feasible?

Plus Infantry tactics themselves had developed from 1914 to the 1930's when the Pz1 was adopted, so such a role would have to be envisioned to be needed

is it technologically possible is seldom the only limiting factor, is it affordable and is there be a perceived need for it are often greater ones

 

[LeX]

I think the issue is that the utility of slow-moving armored vehicles (basically a very heavy train without the need for rails) is not obvious. Kind of like how the effectiveness of drones and glide bombs was only widely recognized a year or so into the Ukraine war.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Right but the development of military doctrine, tactic and teh subsequent driving of military systems being developed and adopted doesn't happen in an instant It takes time (years in fact)

Obviously, but let's assume at the start of 1900-1902 the German, British and French military look at the various armored cars and tractors that started to become more and more common, and, as was shown with the Motor War Car, even if it amounted to nothing, they decide they want an armored reconnaissance vehicle, settling on tracked vehicles as those can more easily support the armor's weight and require less rubber for similar or better off-road performance. So they have 5-8 years to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of tracked vehicles in the replacement role of horse recon.

Only is just not about HP, there might be a 60-80Hp engine available in 1914 but is it the same mass as the one in the P1, what about the transmission, the tracks, the reliability hell the radio everything else.

can you do it a cost that makes it feasible?

Plus Infantry tactics themselves had developed from 1914 to the 1930's when the P1 was adopted, so such role would have to be envisioned to be needed

is it technologically possible is seldom the only limiting factor, is it affordable and would there be a perceived need for it are often greater ones

Hard to answer as there's not a lot of information on the Panzer 1's engine or the weight of truck/tank engines during WW1, like the A7V or the Büssing A5P. Transmission, tracks and all should be relatively straightforward, not a lot changed in building them - calculations and shapes. And honestly, if they could build armored cars weighting 8 tons, tanks weighting 30 tons and even 100 tons, I doubt they would have any problems building a measly 6 ton tank.

Cost wise, it should in theory be cheaper than Büssing A5P, A7V, Marks and perhaps also the FT-17.

 

[TDM]

Obviously, but let's assume at the start of 1900-1902 the German, British and French military look at the various armored cars and tractors that started to become more and more common, and, as was shown with the Motor War Car, even if it amounted to nothing, they decide they want an armored reconnaissance vehicle, settling on tracked vehicles as those can more easily support the armor's weight and require less rubber for similar or better off-road performance.

Only at that point a tracked vehicles are very slow vehicles so you just lost the main requirement for recon, speed

there is more to making an tracked ATV that just taking a road car with a few mm of armour (functionally what that era's armoured cars were) and putting a tracks on it and assuming will go the same speed as it used to.

So they have 5-8 years to figure out the strengths and weaknesses of tracked vehicles in the replacement role of horse recon.

No that's not how it works. They have to start that period thinking there will be significant benefits or they won't devote the time and resources doing it.

Hard to answer as there's not a lot of information on the Panzer 1's engine or the weight of truck/tank engines during WW1, like the A7V or the Büssing A5P. Transmission, tracks and all should be relatively straightforward, not a lot changed in building them - calculations and shapes.

No the A7V's and mark's one of 1918 were way different from the light tanks of the 30's

And honestly, if they could build armored cars weighting 8 tons, tanks weighting 30 tons and even 100 tons, I doubt they would have any problems building a measly 6 ton tank.

Lower weight doesn't necessarily mean easier to make, because you still need to deliver the results you want for the weight.

So just because the Pz1 was a 6 ton tank in the 1930's doesn't mean a 6 ton tank in the 1910's will be a Pz1

Cost wise, it should in theory be cheaper than Büssing A5P, A7V, Marks and perhaps also the FT-17.

case in point the FT17 was a 1910's 6 ton tank, only it doesn't act very much like Pz1 does it?

and I give credit to the FT17 being an advanced tank in 1918!

The FT17 has power/weight ratio of 3.7KW/T, the Pz1 more than doubles that at 8.1KW/T but far more important in terms of the whole package is the Pz1 has 4x the off road speed and 3x the off road operational range! This alone tells you it will not be straightforward

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Only at that point a tracked vehicles are very slow vehicles so you just lost the main requirement for recon, speed

Not when you consider that the alternative is the horse. While the horse can achieve a higher top speed it can't sustain it for very long. A tracked vehicle able to sustain 6-8 mph (Like the Whippet of 1918) for several hours at a time will soon outpace horse patrols.

 

[TDM]

Not when you consider that the alternative is the horse. While the horse can achieve a higher top speed it can't sustain it for very long. A tracked vehicle able to sustain 6-8 mph (Like the Whippet of 1918) for several hours at a time will soon outpace horse patrols.

not when you factor in the operational distance, that FT17's operational distance was 37miles. But you are right I did specify speed there so your point is more than fair!.

Also frankly how reliable were these tanks, how long can they realistically maintain that top speed off road.

either way the whippet was conceived of in 1916 and came out in 1918 (all during war time) the comparison was to 1900-1902 tractors in peacetime and capabilities of the Pz1

 

[Fabius Maximus]

TBH I think the focus on trench warfare might be a red herring. Military thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were well aware of the difficulties new weapons posed for infantry, as illustrated in (for example) the Franco-Prussian and Boer Wars. Getting your soldiers through the hail of enemy bullets was very much a concern, and putting some kind of armoured vehicle in front of your vulnerable infantry soldiers is one possible solution. You might have to bring the invention of the car forward a few years to get enough time for the technology to be applied in the military, and for various armies to work out the appropriate design and doctrine, but having some kind of tank or armoured car analogue in use by 1914 should be doable.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Only at that point a tracked vehicles are very slow vehicles so you just lost the main requirement for recon, speed

there is more to making an tracked ATV that just taking a road car with a few mm of armour (functionally what that era's armoured cars were) and putting a tracks on it and assuming will go the same speed as it used to.


No that not how it works they have to start that periods thinking there will be significant benefits or they won't devote the time and resources doing it.

That's not true. Sure, the majority of tracked vehicles were very slow because there was no need for them to be fast, as most were just tractors, not recon ones. It was no technological barrier, for example, David Roberts' tracked vehicles could achieve between 20 km/h to 40 km/h off-road in 1908.

The benefit, perhaps, would be a combo of fast recon tracked vehicle with an armed turret and a arty tow tractor without the turret, serving two roles.

No teh A7V's and mark's one of 1918 were way different from the light tanks of teh 30's

I am not talking about the tanks themselves but the mechanical engineering, most calculations and standards remained unchanged to an extent. It was mostly the material science that pushed development further.

Lower weight doesn't necessarily mean easier to make, because you still need to deliver the results you want for the weight.

So just because the Pz1 was a 6 ton tank in the 1930's doesn't mean a 6 ton tank in the 1910's will be a Pz1

I disagree with that, lower weight makes building something easier as the stress on the suspension, on the transmission and on the engine is much lower...

And just because the Pz1 was a 6 ton tank in the 1930s doesn't mean every 6 ton tank in the 1930s is a Pz1.

case in point the FT17 was a 1910's 6 ton tank, only it doesn't act very much like Pz1 does it?

and I give credit to the FT17 being an advanced tank in 1918!

The FT17 has power/weight ratio of 3.7KW/T, the Pz1 more than doubles that at 8.1KW/T but far more important in terms of the whole package is the Pz1 has 4x the off road speed and 3x the off road operational range! This alone tells you it will not be straightforward

Well, the FT17 was build from the ground up as a trench capable tank, sacrificing speed for the cross capability, something that the Pz1 wasn't. Plus, it was underpowered compared to the Pz1. It is all dependent on the architecture of the vehicle, Roberts showed that with the current tank it was possible to build a tracked vehicle able to travel at 40 km/h, it just requires a need, which, given this is AH, could easily be provided in various forms.

 

[TDM]

That's not true. Sure, the majority of tracked vehicles were very slow because there was no need for them to be fast, as most were just tractors, not recon ones. It was no technological barrier, for example, David Roberts' tracked vehicles could achieve between 20 km/h to 40 km/h off-road in 1908.

The benefit, perhaps, would be a combo of fast recon tracked vehicle with an armed turret and a arty tow tractor without the turret, serving two roles.

I am not talking about the tanks themselves but the mechanical engineering, most calculations and standards remained unchanged to an extent. It was mostly the material science that pushed development further.

well Ok but i was talking about tanks since well we're talking about actual tanks being developed and all the steps that come between what abstractly possible on drawing board and actually creating a thig that works as intended and is worth doing for resources it would take to happen

I disagree with that, lower weight makes building something easier as the stress on the suspension, on the transmission and on the engine is much lower...

And just because the Pz1 was a 6 ton tank in the 1930s doesn't mean every 6 ton tank in the 1930s is a Pz1.

Well, the FT17 was build from the ground up as a trench capable tank, sacrificing speed for the cross capability, something that the Pz1 wasn't. Plus, it was underpowered compared to the Pz1. It is all dependent on the architecture of the vehicle, Roberts showed that with the current tank it was possible to build a tracked vehicle able to travel at 40 km/h,

can you post what Roberts 1908 40kmh off road tracked vehicle was so we can compare it to a tank

also you are wrong about there being no technological development between the ww1 and the 1930s other then material scienece when it came to tanks

it just requires a need, which, given this is AH, could easily be provided in various forms.

development of cost effective military vehicles has never been that simple

 

[AndrewSt]

Maybe not tanks but half-tracks are certainly do-able. APC types and perhaps "Light tank-ish" ones armed with weapons up to 75mm for close support/mobile artillery? A bit quicker than the early tanks if not quite so good on poor ground - and certainly quicker than leg infantry. Good for the first few months of the war if it starts as OTL? With enough of them, might the Germans even get to Paris?

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

well Ok but i was talking about tanks since well we're talking about actual tanks being developed and all the steps that come between what abstractly possible on drawing board and actually creating a thig that works as intended and is worth doing for resources it would take to happen

No, you were talking about 1902 tractors and were comparing it with a Pz1. It is pointless to look at the transmission, suspension, engine and performance of a tractor and conclude that's what a tank would end up looking and performing.

can you post what Roberts 1908 40kmh off road tracked vehicle was so we can compare it to a tank

I believe it is this one. Though, keep in mind that this is a conversion of a car to a tracked vehicle, not a from 0 one.

also you are wrong about there being no technological development between the ww1 and the 1930s other then material scienece when it came to tanks

Yes, I misspoke here but I was trying to get the point that the design process, formulas, calculations, Young modulus, etc. are still the same from 1900 to 1930 and so on. Yes, obviously different suspension types, ball bearings, springs, electrical equipment, track design etc. are new inventions that did not exist prior to year x>1910s.

development of cost effective military vehicles has never been that simple

You are oddly fixated upon this whole cost effective, so, please explain what would be considered cost effective in 1914? Because even a very expensive tractor, armored car or light, fast recon tank is better to have than none at all, at least from the military perspective...

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Maybe not tanks but half-tracks are certainly do-able. APC types and perhaps "Light tank-ish" ones armed with weapons up to 75mm for close support/mobile artillery? A bit quicker than the early tanks if not quite so good on poor ground - and certainly quicker than leg infantry. Good for the first few months of the war if it starts as OTL? With enough of them, might the Germans even get to Paris?

A light tankette-style vehicle should be doable: basically a two-man, car-sized tank, with one person driving it and the other firing the gun. Its smaller size would make it easier to build and engineer than a "proper" tank, and it would have obvious use in an infantry support role, making it a good candidate for development pre-1914.

 

[TDM]

No, you were talking about 1902 tractors and were comparing it with a Pz1. It is pointless to look at the transmission, suspension, engine and performance of a tractor and conclude that's what a tank would end up looking and performing.

Because your claim was they were going to be able to go from 1902 tractors to something with the specs of a Pz1 in a few years.

To do that you have to address all the things that where developed over time and in place and that gave a Pz1 it's specs. Hence me comparing a FT17 to a Pz1, since the FT17 was at last a fast 6ish ton tank that came out of a perceived need for one and from a wider tank development that was happening during a period when tanks development was accelerated due to wartime and designs and concepts were tested in real life, kept and iterated upon or dropped.

teh development of the OTL Pz1 is of course not the only way you could create such a thing in theory, but comparing OTL vehicles and OTL development of such vehicles does illustrate the complexities and realities of how this all came about. You will have to show us your ATL path and it going to have be at least somewhat believable one, especially as you are talking about doing so at far faster rate and starting earlier.

I believe it is this one. Though, keep in mind that this is a conversion of a car to a tracked vehicle, not a from 0 one.

Ok do you have an actual link for the thing, either way it looks a fair few steps away from a tank, let alone a Pz1, which is why you can't just say this thing goes at 20-40kmh off road in 1902 so therefore you can have within a few years something analogous to the Pz1 based on it.

Yes, I misspoke here but I was trying to get the point that the design process, formulas, calculations, Young modulus, etc. are still the same from 1900 to 1930 and so on. Yes, obviously different suspension types, ball bearings, springs, electrical equipment, track design etc. are new inventions that did not exist prior to year x>1910s.

and that will have implications for your assertion when it comes to actually making vehicles, even if the laws of physics and maths don't change

Which was the point I was trying to make when I compared FT17 to Pz1, as you (and I said) in terms of power to weight the FT17 was roughly half teh Pz1, but the key point I made was that 2:1 ratio was not reflected in the Pz1's capabilities i.e. other factors are relevant. Similarly the Pz1 fuel tank capacity is roughly half as much again as the FT17 (146 litres vs. 98 litres) but it has roughly 3x the off road operational range. (And while yes the FT17 and Pz1 were designed with slightly different roles in mind and different tools for those roles both ere basically designed to be fast small tanks and were roughly 6 tons)

You are oddly fixated upon this whole cost effective,

Yes because it is massively important in this context

so, please explain what would be considered cost effective in 1914? Because even a very expensive tractor, armored car or light, fast recon tank is better to have than none at all, at least from the military perspective...

That is not what cost effective means,

ok so I'm trying phrase in a reasonable way as I can, what is your understanding of the term cost effective in this context?

 

[RedSword12]

Early tanks would not be very good for the task of preventing a trench stalemate.

 

[yulzari1]

Given the pre war doctrine of a rapid advance perhaps a more feasible option could be large numbers of armoured cars.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

A light tankette-style vehicle should be doable: basically a two-man, car-sized tank, with one person driving it and the other firing the gun. Its smaller size would make it easier to build and engineer than a "proper" tank, and it would have obvious use in an infantry support role, making it a good candidate for development pre-1914.

There was a lot of development in cars in the early 1900s, but things that look like cars were pretty much Model T onwards, so about 1908. Put armour or a gun on a Model T and it won't go anywhere. By 1914, there were buses, cars trucks that worked OK and could carry guns, armour etc on road. By about 1916 there were rubbish tanks and pretty good armoured cars. The pace of change even without the war was very fast.
That means you can't just have earlier tanks as the technology wasn't up to it. But it also means that if you can push back car development by less than ten years, the automotive technology should be good enough for a few primitive tanks to be under development by 1914.
As likely as not you'll have as many Tsar Tanks as useful ones, but that just adds room for creative designs.
Personally at the start in 1914 I'd expect greater use of (unarmoured) cars to carry mgs and pompoms and maybe tbe odd 47 or 57mm gun, with armouring to follow soon after. This might be enough to keep warfare mobile a bit longer, but ultimately trenches are needed to protect against artillery and MGs and practical tanks can be exoected to emerge as a counter to trenches.