The Burstyn Tank in WWI

Prince Charon

Suppose that the Austro-Hungarian Empire had chosen to produce the Burstyn Tank in 1914, when it became obvious that war was coming, or 1915, when they'd been stuck in the trenches for a few months.

What effect would this early introduction of the tank have had on the war?
 

TofuTanker

Unless America joined the war at an earlier date than they did, the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans just might have won. Tanks are not to be underestimated.
 

Emethyst

From what I have read, it would have been a weaker version of the British Mark 'series' of tanks. If it was available in large enough numbers and used en masse, trench warfare could be butterflied away after a year or so (the massed tank tactics won't become used until there is reason for the idea to develop, as again the Burstyn was designed to support infantry).
 

Deleted member 1487

Tanks in WW1 were not wonder weapons that were war winning. They may help create a break in, but that was never the problem. The problem was exploiting the breakthrough, an issue never solved on the West Front and could not be by the tank, as it was a short ranged weapon that broke down frequently. The great 100 days advance was achieved against a defeated, decimated, starving, under-equipped, overextended, morally-collapsed army that still managed to prevent a break through while inflicting over 1 million casualties on the enemy (with the largest collection of tanks ever seen at that point in history).

Also the issue of production is completely ignored here. Austria could not build these vehicles. Of all the great powers, they were probably the least industrialized (save Italy) and in 1916 produced fewer that 600 airplanes! Germany was forced to supplement the supply of Austria for just about everything including locomotives to transport their armies to the front and keep them supplied. Germany was starved of critical resources and had to prioritize their production for necessary war materials (artillery, machine guns, rolling stock-incredibly important and in short supply, basically all the non-sexy stuff that makes war possible). These materials were always in short supply, so producing tanks (which for Germany would not be useful until 1918) would be taking away from other more important projects that kept the army in the game until the end OTL.

Basically tanks are a no go for the Central Powers in WW1. There relevance would not come until their use in exploitation was realized by WW2 where they would become indespensible. Prior they just had potential to be rather than being a war-winning weapon.
 

Tom_B

wiking said:
Tanks in WW1 were not wonder weapons that were war winning. They may help create a break in, but that was never the problem. The problem was exploiting the breakthrough, an issue never solved on the West Front and could not be by the tank, as it was a short ranged weapon that broke down frequently. The great 100 days advance was achieved against a defeated, decimated, starving, under-equipped, overextended, morally-collapsed army that still managed to prevent a break through while inflicting over 1 million casualties on the enemy (with the largest collection of tanks ever seen at that point in history).

Also the issue of production is completely ignored here. Austria could not build these vehicles. Of all the great powers, they were probably the least industrialized (save Italy) and in 1916 produced fewer that 600 airplanes! Germany was forced to supplement the supply of Austria for just about everything including locomotives to transport their armies to the front and keep them supplied. Germany was starved of critical resources and had to prioritize their production for necessary war materials (artillery, machine guns, rolling stock-incredibly important and in short supply, basically all the non-sexy stuff that makes war possible). These materials were always in short supply, so producing tanks (which for Germany would not be useful until 1918) would be taking away from other more important projects that kept the army in the game until the end OTL.

Basically tanks are a no go for the Central Powers in WW1. There relevance would not come until their use in exploitation was realized by WW2 where they would become indespensible. Prior they just had potential to be rather than being a war-winning weapon.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with this. It should be noted that as late as the Spanish Civil War tanks were far from being the superweapon the tankhappy crowd on this Board want them to be.
 

rast

The use of tanks saved the blood of the infantry. That's their main impact in OTL WW1. Cambrai would most probably have been possible without tanks - given the British superiority in infantry, artillery and air force - opposite something like four overextended German regiments in the Siegfried1 position. - But at which price?
Fast tanks, like the Whippet and the A7V, also could have been used to attack the enemy artillery. In the case of the A7V, the restrictive German tactics of tank use forestalled this. In the case of the Whippets, their intended role as cavalry support prevented them from being used according to their best possibilities.
The Burstyn design was not only offered to the Austrians, also the German war ministry received his proposal. Imagine the Germans producing it - say because the technophile Kaiser wants it - in 1914/15. It would change the course of the war for sure.
 

Deleted member 1487

The course maybe but not the outcome, not by a long shot. And also remember the final result of Cambrai- A german victory won by infantry. What about Vimy ridge? Infantry assault with few losses and a big success.
 

Tom_B

POD: The German General Staff sets up a limited resources project to pursue the Burstyn vehicle and when the war opens there is a small production run trying to work out teething problems.

In first two months of the war it sees no action. A few more are produced and the engineers try to rectify problems.

The earliest use for it comes in Oct during First Ypres where frustrated by the stubborn British defense Falkenhayn orders their use. They surprise and shock the BEF initially but then they breakdown and countermeasures are improvised. Likely result is the BEF loses the town itself but are able to hold the canal line immediately west. The Germans may then shift their attack to taking Mt Kimmel but I don't see a permanent change to mobile warfare as subsequent use of the Burstyn yield mediocre results.

Maybe after that the Heer sends some to Ludendorff in Dec and they help him penetrate the Russian entrenchments that stymied the Germans after Second Lodz. Again I would see a pattern of initial surprise, mechanical breakdowns and an enemy learning curve. Best case for the Germans is they take Warsaw around Christmas but after that the bloom is off the rose.
 

Mostlyharmless

wiking said:
The course maybe but not the outcome, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...
The production of large numbers of tanks by the Central Powers requires steel. If there was a stark choice of building tanks or submarines and tanks were chosen, the outcome would be seriously changed.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Mostlyharmless said:
The production of large numbers of tanks by the Central Powers requires steel. If there was a stark choice of building tanks or submarines and tanks were chosen, the outcome would be seriously changed.
Click to expand...
Good point (interesting geopolitical implications) - although the tanks could probably be built with a lower grade of steel than the submarines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top