Combustion engines were just too much in their infancy and animal power still much too prevalent for tanks (or even armored cars) to be big factors until the 30's and I'm being really conservative with that.Rail and sea transport was the game changer which allowed fast troop and logistic material movement at that time point.
WW1 starts with Tanks
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Ironically, with a bit of help, A-H could start the war with tanks. Gunther Burstyn designed a tank in 1911, but the army had no interest. If the army was interested, they might start out with some. Now, assuming they aren't wasted to no effect in Serbia, perhaps they feature in breakthroughs.
If they're intended to go into firing range, I'd expect they'd want at least a bit of light armour to defend against small arms fire.
Based on the accounts I've read from the Boer War, I'd say that magazine rifles were a bigger factor than artillery. Artillery was the big killer of WW1, true, but that was mostly because everyone was already pinned down by the threat of rifle rifle, meaning that the big guns could shell them to pieces at leisure. If warfare was still mobile, artillery would be less effective (though still effective, of course).
German and Austro-Hungarian artillery made possible the war of maneuver in the early weeks of the war by busting open Belgian forts.
I can see people considering armour before combat starts but until casualties start to become unacceptable it will likely be seen as excess weight. The field gun and mg crews didn't have armour - other than gun shields where fitted - and were used in direct fire roles. Similarly, portee mounted weapons, unprotected MGs etc continued into WW2 despite being at risk from return fire, although of course the guns were dug in and protected where ground and time permitted.
A car is a much bigger target than a man, though, and can't lie down or dig in like an MG team can. Cavalry of this period went out of use largely because they were too easy to shoot, and an unarmoured battlefield car would face the same problem.
One issue with a lot of the early armoured cars is that they were all essentially experimential vehicles. For a major power to take them seriously they have to be used by a major power in a serious war. Only then is a production run going to be set up as per by the Belgiums and British in the second half of 1914.
Britain COULD have invested in armoured cars for security in an increasingly tense Ireland that was on the brink of Civil War.
Yes artillery made maneuvers possible by busting the forts but it was the Magazine Rifle and the Machine Gun that forced trops to dig trenches and that ment the troops stopped maneuvering long enough for the artillery to blow them to pieces. The Artilery in WW1 was not as maneuverable as it would be in WW2. And the army itself was forced to move by trains or walk. And to not get to far from the trains which supplied them.
As for tanks I still say you can’t build a dependable take pre WW1. And even with the improvements in engines and systems and vehicles and what have caused by WW1 the tanks we did get sucked. look at how many broke down. Or look at how vulnerable they really were. Heck the 50cal was basically designed to be an anti tank round and by WW2 they were mounted to tanks (and everything else) as a combination anti personnel gun and Anti Aircraft guns.
It wansnt until right before WW2 that tanks truly become useful and dependable. They were te prime two beast before that and even in WW2 many tanks were not dependable. Even the Sherman a WW2 design was not exactly 100% reliable.
So all you are getting pre WW1 is a couple units that break down a lot. And a lot of comments along the line of….if they can every make thse contraptions work they may be useful.
As for tanks I still say you can’t build a dependable take pre WW1. And even with the improvements in engines and systems and vehicles and what have caused by WW1 the tanks we did get sucked. look at how many broke down. Or look at how vulnerable they really were. Heck the 50cal was basically designed to be an anti tank round and by WW2 they were mounted to tanks (and everything else) as a combination anti personnel gun and Anti Aircraft guns.
It wansnt until right before WW2 that tanks truly become useful and dependable. They were te prime two beast before that and even in WW2 many tanks were not dependable. Even the Sherman a WW2 design was not exactly 100% reliable.
So all you are getting pre WW1 is a couple units that break down a lot. And a lot of comments along the line of….if they can every make thse contraptions work they may be useful.
Spain and Italy had armoured cars in pre WW1 colonial wars but they do not seem to have made any impression. Also Britain had a post-Boer War armoured vehicle. However, it is such a monstrosity that it was not going to go anywhere fast in more ways than one.
So I agree the British could have even if they were a few experimental ones.
Given the power engines and amount of armour that could be put on an pre WW1 armoured car a 50cal machine weapon be perfectly adequate. It is not going to make any impression on a bunker but it can sort out infantry in the open along with cavalry. NO need to se;lect ammo.JUst shoot.
The Burstyn tank design had an autocannon, but that was to shoot up bunkers. Armoured cars would expect to use supporting artillery for that.
If you look at the first armoured cars you need something that has limited armour and a machine gun. It does not have to be very good. It needs just enough firepower and protection that it is better in situations than a machine gun or cavalry unit AND it gets in some of those situations.
A WW1 tank costs £5000, thats enough rifles for a Battalion. 1 tank to 1000 armed men for 1913 procurement officers would be a no brainer, that and it frightens the horses.
Back to my speculation or Ireland, how would the Government reacted to someone in Carson's UVF with connections to Harland and Wolf converting a handful or armoured cars in 1912-14.
What i was trying to point out (badly) was that tanks in WW1 sucked because it was very easy yo build an anti tank weapon that could be easily built in mass numbers and supplied to troops and be moved around with relative ease and often have another use,
In WW2 it took a serious weapon and or a dedicated anti tank weapon to take out a tank. In WW1 a heavy 50 cal mechine gun could have done the job. And in fact early on a few tanks were taken out by massed gunfire. And this was before thinhpgs like 50 cal heavy machine guns were being produced in mass.
And yes heavier armor was not really possible as the engines suspension amd everything was hard pressed (barely work most the time) with the light armor WW1 tanks had.
In WW2 it took a serious weapon and or a dedicated anti tank weapon to take out a tank. In WW1 a heavy 50 cal mechine gun could have done the job. And in fact early on a few tanks were taken out by massed gunfire. And this was before thinhpgs like 50 cal heavy machine guns were being produced in mass.
And yes heavier armor was not really possible as the engines suspension amd everything was hard pressed (barely work most the time) with the light armor WW1 tanks had.
I was more talking that they get the idea of making a tracked armored car after seeing the widespread of tractors.
A fair point, however, I chose the Pz1 as an example, TTL tank could very well be just a Leichttraktor or Motorgeschütz or something different. And, another reason, because its reliability, its performance and troop dislike of it were just as bad as a FT17, at least the first hundred produced, so I don't expect a TTL Pz1 to perform as the one with all problems solved after 1936 in the form of the Ausf B variant.
No, there's not a lot of information about it except that it was a 75 hp car converted to use tracks and did 40 km/h, (though it isn't mentioned if it was off road or not so there's that) which, I believe I already mentioned that it was a conversion and not a military vehicle? The point being that depending on the suspension and track system you could get a Pz1 specs, speed wise with WW1 technology.
While the range might be attributed to the better, more modern engine, it could just as well be because of higher cruising/traveling speed for the same consumption of fuel as with the FT 17. Also, not sure how much it influenced the design but the FT 17 was designed with a maximum speed of 12 km/h in mind during 1916, while the Pz1 with more than 30 km/h, and it also shows in the transmission, 3 forward gears in the 17 and 5 in the Pz1, which is probably a reason why it had better overall speed on 60 HP ~ 37 km/h. A better example of a more powerful FT 17 would be the post war (1921) Fiat 3000 that with a 50-63 HP getting to 21-22 km/h on road and 8-12 km/h off road, reaching the limit of the 17's gearbox.
That the tank in this case fulfills army requirements that cannot be fulfilled by other means, or doing it so at a very clear advantage that its cost - production manhours, resources and other various consumables - is not absurdly high that the production cannot keep up with the demand (for replacements, though this could be ameliorated by expanding the production or subcontracting it) without impairing other vital sectors like rifle production, truck production, ship production etc. The tank they get being worth the money spent without eating into other vital equipment, and honestly, I would say a Pz1 equivalent is 10 times more cost effective than the Mark landships so I honestly don't see why it wouldn't be cost effective.
The big reason being all wasted space and sheer size of the WW1 tanks. WW2 tanks utilized space more efficiently keeping length, height and width half of those WW1 tanks, weighting less or as much but being 5 times more armored.
I don't think you can blame the Renault FT of wasting space. And that is the one you were discussing.
At the time no one would know whether or not a tank or armoured car is cost efffective because no one knows what it might achieve.
Comparing the cost of a tank against 1000 rifles overlooks two factors. One, there are no tank factories whilst there are rifle factories. Two, the establishment gets a rake off procuring rifles. There is no back handers from building a few tanks.
Many of the early armoured cars were developed by low ranking officers. It was only when the British ready needed a tank because of the casualties that higher ranking officers got involved.
Uh, no? I was discussing the FT before responding to DougM where I was thinking about the big tanks, like the Marks, Saint-Chamond, A7V etc which weighted between 20 to 40 tons and had no more than 20 mm of armor. The FT gets a pass for being relatively well armored tank while keeping the weight under 7 tones and powered by a measly 40 HP engine, though, overall, it was a mediocre design, the Italians made a much better FT in their Fiat 3000 which was 80% a normal FT with 20% improvements.
I mean, you could get an idea if it is from the initial requirements - ie, a scout car, and compare to the closest equivalent for a day of operation, a week, a month, etc. which is the horse. If the numbers look good, and the theory makes sense, you then have to build the darn thing to see if theory works in practice then, if the vehicle fulfils the initial requirements and more or less works as intended, you start production of it. Like, obviously you don't know until you test the prototype, but building a prototype doesn't matter if it is cost effective, the production variant matters.
There are no tank factories yes, but there are train factories, engineering companies, workshops, steel foundries, car companies etc. that could each produce the individual parts for a tank, and was done historically in many instances. And again, if the prototype passes the tests and series production is ordered, a contract is awarded to the company that could build one, as done historically also. (Closest example that I can think of from the top of my head is Krupp, they did not have a tank factory, they did not know how a tank factory looked like but used their train/locomotive experience to mass produce the Panzer IV)
Well yes? This is AH so we could do a scenario where some higher ranking officer stumbles upon one and fully supports it.
Another example is the USA WW2. A lot of factories were converted from producing cars, etc to making war machines. WW1 and WW2 factories were more convertable than modern ones. The thing is that is an overhead in converting a factory from say cars or locos to tanks because you have to reorganise the stores. maybe retrain some workers and order produce lines,
Do that for say 5 armoured cars and people might not want the contract. Do that for 50 and now you are talking.
Higher ranking officer? How about Ernest Dunlop Swinton. In late 1914 he got the idea of a tank so he could have considered the idea earlier. He was a major at the time. He wrote a training manual for the British Army so if he suggested a tank he has the credibilty for generals to at least listen to him.
Indeed, though, there would be no investment for the 5 armored cars to reorganize the workshop, the 5 cars would be ordered as custom builds, more expensive than series production but wouldn't require too much work.
For the British perhaps, or maybe Simms and Hornsby team up and make a tractor and light tank in 1908-1910 which gathers the attention of the Army. As for the other side, maybe someone in Germany gets interested in building Burstyn's tank when he tried to sell it to them?
If the proposed idea for British is based on the Simm's Motor War Car then hopefully some one sits on the idea until it goes away.
The Burstyn Motor Gun was a missed opportunity by the Germans.