Alternate History Engineering

[Zor]

I was just wondering, using 19th Century technology and equipment, would it be posible to make practical Steam Powered cars/military Vehicles?

Zor

[Forum Lurker]

It would be possible to make steam-powered land vehicles, but they would be more akin to self-propelled artillery than true armored fighting vehicles. They would also have rather poor handling in rough terrain.

[wkwillis]

In 1900, they had practical steam cars. Good ones, too. In 1800 the steam engines were barely capable of trundling across the landscape at two miles per hour, on the flat, with the wind behind them.
1850 is about the beginning of practical land vehicles capable of running a bus or a truck on a graveled road at faster than walking speed. Say, five miles an hour for 16 hours.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by wkwillis

In 1900, they had practical steam cars. Good ones, too. In 1800 the steam engines were barely capable of trundling across the landscape at two miles per hour, on the flat, with the wind behind them.
1850 is about the beginning of practical land vehicles capable of running a bus or a truck on a graveled road at faster than walking speed. Say, five miles an hour for 16 hours.

1850 you say? That makes for an interesting WI for the ACW! Say the Union in mid 1862, frustrated by Lee's continuing dominance in North Virginia, take up a crazy idea where a steam engined tractor (they existed OTL) was surrounded in armour (say 1/2 inch thick) & given a small crew (other than the driver/engineers etc) of say 5 who fired repeating carbines/rifles (Sharps) through rifle slots?

Then, when 30 of these beasts are built (& are proven to work), the Union attacks at Fredericksburg in 1863. After the town is cleared, & they ready to advance at the Reb line (obviously Union engineers advanced to fill in part of the canal etc), these steam powered beasts then advance from the town, with the infantry following in support (in a manor akin to WW1), straight at the infamous stone wall.

What happens?

[wkwillis]

DMA
They get knocked out immediately by muzzle loading cannon firing roundshot. The iron plates surounding the wooden framework are physically dislodged from the bolts and sent spinning across the fields. The wheels are smashed in. A complete fiasco.
But the giant, steam powered flamethrowers with the two hundred yard range...That puts the fear of god into the Confederate troops. An entire division simply leaves the field of battle. If the Union self propelled armor hadn't broken down within two miles of the line of attack, the Confederates might have lost the war right then.

[Forum Lurker]

At that point of tech development, no steamcar with enough armor to stop a direct cannon hit would be able to move. If, however, you give a light howitzer just enough armor to stop rifle bullets and shrapnel, you've got a weapon which is genuinely useful. Flamethrowers, I'm guessing, require a greater degree of precision engineering to avoid very nasty backfires.

[carlton_bach]

Flamethrowers are actually pretty easy, if you keep the fire near the muzzle and well away from the reservoir and put a valve or three between them. The range would not be anywhere near 200 metres unless you used power from the engine to pump, and I doubt the weapon would be condoned by the officer corps, but possible.

You problem ios not going to be the power source. steam engines do not scale well, but by the second half of the 19th century you can build them in a small enough size to be useable for vehicles. They were even powerful enough to be used in tractor engines, so I guess enough armor to withstand shrapnel and light field guns would be possible. The problem is the drivetrain. Until around 1890, all they had was wheels, and without very advanced rubber tyres (not available then) they don't work well on rough terrain. Even the very large, wide wheels used on agricultural locomobiles were suitable for flat fields only. Now, what might make a viable POD is for someone to invent "self-laying segmented rails" - i.e. tracks. It's perfectly possible much earlier, but there was no perceived need. A tracked, armored locomobile armed with a light field gun would still be a bit of a joke, but only until it gets within range.

[Othniel]

Originally Posted by wkwillis

DMA
They get knocked out immediately by muzzle loading cannon firing roundshot. The iron plates surounding the wooden framework are physically dislodged from the bolts and sent spinning across the fields. The wheels are smashed in. A complete fiasco.
But the giant, steam powered flamethrowers with the two hundred yard range...That puts the fear of god into the Confederate troops. An entire division simply leaves the field of battle. If the Union self propelled armor hadn't broken down within two miles of the line of attack, the Confederates might have lost the war right then.

Um, gaint steam ran tractors would also strike fear into their hearts. They'd be more intimadating than anything else.

[Forum Lurker]

Tracks aren't the only way to do it. They're probably the best way, but a large number of toothed wheels would approximate the effect.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by wkwillis

DMA
They get knocked out immediately by muzzle loading cannon firing roundshot.

This is Reb artillery that we're talking about right? The same artillery that was notoriously inaccurate. And this besides the fact that tanks, even today, are not impervious to artillery.

Originally Posted by wkwillis

The iron plates surounding the wooden framework are physically dislodged from the bolts and sent spinning across the fields.

Who ever said they were iron. Considering there's plenty of steel around, I would have thought the armour was steel. And I don't recall the bolts & armour dislodging & flying around when the Monitor & Merrimack was battling it out.

Originally Posted by wkwillis

The wheels are smashed in.

This could happen with a direct hit. Then again a direct hit on the tracks on an Abram M1 would ensure it's pretty screwed too.

Originally Posted by wkwillis

A complete fiasco.

Well, even with all the hassles the first British tank attack had, the fiasco was caused by the infantry not being supported. The tanks, needless to say, passed their first test albeit unsuccessfully. Otherwise I guess we'd still have real cavalry regiments attacking instead of tank ones.

Originally Posted by wkwillis

But the giant, steam powered flamethrowers with the two hundred yard range...That puts the fear of god into the Confederate troops. An entire division simply leaves the field of battle. If the Union self propelled armor hadn't broken down within two miles of the line of attack, the Confederates might have lost the war right then.

Flamethrowers?

[DMA]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Now, what might make a viable POD is for someone to invent "self-laying segmented rails" - i.e. tracks. It's perfectly possible much earlier, but there was no perceived need. A tracked, armored locomobile armed with a light field gun would still be a bit of a joke, but only until it gets within range.

Actually there was a rail gun used during the Penisular Campaign in 1862. I don't think it was armoured, though, but it's a start.

[Forum Lurker]

That, I would guess, would be a railroad-travelling weapon, not one capable of all-terrain movement.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Forum Lurker

That, I would guess, would be a railroad-travelling weapon, not one capable of all-terrain movement.

Yes it was just a rail gun in the traditional sense of the term. It was a first for a war, though, from what I can tell.

And as i said, it's a start, but only that.

[PJ Norris]

Well if the Bohemians can do it in the middle ages (with wagons mind you) surely the ingenuity of the Americans can figure it out. Actually after I read the Confederates building the world's first practical submarine I've always imagined the southerners building the first tanks but never had the factories to mass-produce them.

[DMA]

Here's a pic of the Confederate "armored railroad gun" used during the Peninsular Campaign 1862:





The Confederate gun was a naval 32 pounder gun & was rifled. It fired a 15-inch solid bolt shot (& I'd guess canister, grape, etc as well).


And here's another pic of a Union one used during the seige of Petersburg:



The Union gun was a l3-inch mortar. It fired a 200-pound shell three miles or more.

Source: When artillery first took to the rails

[Scarecrow]

whoa. now you just need to get it of the tracks...maybe i will do some Bryce models of CS and US 'steam tanks'...

[Forum Lurker]

You'll note that, as best I can tell, neither has an attached locomotive train, being simply towed. That makes it little different (in design, not utility) than a horse-drawn cannon writ large.

[DMA]

yeah, i'd say they were obviously towed or pushed. Importantly, though, towing them, given the right wheels etc, across on open field at an enemy's lines wouldn't be too difficult, especially for the mortar. You'd simply fire over the engine. You'd still need heavy infantry in support, though, otherwise the enemy simply attacks, as there's no way that these beasts could protect themselves under such circumstances.

[Forum Lurker]

My suggestion would be this:

Abscond with an entire locomotive. Replace the wheels which would run on the track with a set of wheels which puts as much metal on the ground as possible, using toothed wheels (much like a gear) of shape more cylindrical than disklike, to minimize the amount to which it sinks into the ground and maximize traction.

Use a mortar like those used in OTL, for a high arc which allows you to shoot without LOS.

Strap on enough armor to stop a minie ball, and line the thing with firing slits.

If it can't make good enough time to be able to retreat from foot troops, toss in a few small swivelled smoothbores (30-50mm) for grapeshot.

EDIT: Actually, you'll probably end up needing two locomotives, so you can turn properly; it'd be easier, if less efficient, than making a car-like steering mechanism.

[DMA]

I think you'll find, whether it be one or especially two such engines, that it'll be simply far too heavy for anything other than an actual rail road. As has already been posted by a couple of others, it's the weight of the steam engine that's the main problem.

Having seen tractor steam engines in action only last weekend, along their limitations, the steam technology's biggest problem is the sheer size everything has to be just to get such a tractor to move at walking pace. But rewheeling actual railway engines will be too heavy, considering the weight involved.

Ironically, too, you'll probably have far too much power for the road wheels to handle.

So either the thing will get bogged down, due to the weight, or it'll rip the wheels off due to the power!