Austrian tank before WWI

Valdemar II · Apr 19, 2011

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm

An Austrian army officer, k.u.k Genie-Oberleutenant Günther Burstyn (born on 6/7 1879 in Bad Aussee, Steiermark, and dead 15/4 1945 in Korneuburg, Niederösterreich) inspired by the sight of the American Holt agricultural tractor with crawler tracks, designed a small tracked vehicle, which he called a Motorgeschütz (motor-gun), built it in model form, and sent this and the design to the Austrian War Office in October 1911. Had it been built the vehicle would have been 3.5m long, 1.9m wide and 1.9m high. Cross-country speed would have been about 8 km/h, road speed 29 km/h. It would be propelled by a 60HP Truck Engine. The four subsidiary wheels, two at each end on arms, could be lowered as required, the rear pair being driven as an aid to traction and the front pair, which could be pivoted, being intended for steering. It was supposed to have an armament of a small calibre fast fire gun (30-40mm calibre). Its tactical use would be close support of Infantry Attacks, for suppression of enemy MG's, and also frontal attacks against enemy artillery positions.

The Austro-Hungarian War Office returned the designs to Burstyn saying they might be interested if a commercial firm could build it: Burstyn had no industrial contacts and so let the matter drop. Also, the War Office declined to finance any further work. Meanwhile the German War Department asked to see the design, but were not enthusiastic even though a leading German military periodical keenly endorsed the idea. A further complication arose when Burstyn in 1912 sought to patent the design and was told that this could not be granted as it infringed existing patents, including those for agricultural tractors. (He eventually was granted a patent, no Zl. 252 815 DRP.) Thus discouraged, Burstyn allowed the idea to drop, and it never progressed beyond paper.

What if the Austrian build some of these "landships" before WWI. What effect would it have on the war?

Personal they look rather well adapted to trench warfare, of course the Austrians wasn't at many trench warfare fronts, but German observers will likely discover these units success against defenders rather fast and buy some from Austria. Whether it's going to change anything are the question, but even small benefits may be enough to improve the German position to a large degree.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 19, 2011

Valdemar II said:
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm

What if the Austrian build some of these "landships" before WWI. What effect would it have on the war?

Personal they look rather well adapted to trench warfare, of course the Austrians wasn't at many trench warfare fronts, but German observers will likely discover these units success against defenders rather fast and buy some from Austria. Whether it's going to change anything are the question, but even small benefits may be enough to improve the German position to a large degree.

What do they give up instead? They couldn't afford basic weapons for their divisions let alone a special weapon like a tank thanks to governmental disagreements. If anything Burstyn's other avenue would have to pan out: approaching German firms to manufacture the weapon. OTL they didn't because of German army budget constraints, but potentially there was a market there for the weapon.

The big problem though is technology and doctrine. Tanks were only useful in breaking through trenches, which pre-war were not viewed as a major concern. The technology for a exploitation tank was not there. So really it is of no use to invest in a vehicle that doesn't have endurance or any real purpose, as trench warfare was not anticipated. Even on the Eastern Front the AHs wouldn't need it because trench warfare wasn't really an issue thanks to perpetual open flanks because of vast distances. Even where they did experience trench warfare (Serbia, Italy, parts of the Eastern Front), the poor infrastructure and rough terrain made them virtually useless. Really only the Germans could benefit from it on the Western Front and even then it wouldn't make a big difference thanks to the material superiority of the Entente and lack of endurance that would all WW2 tanks to move faster than enemy reserves. So if it is manufactured prewar for some reason, it probably wouldn't have made a difference for the Central Powers in any way, other than to take money from more worthy projects like better artillery or more munitions.

Valdemar II · Apr 19, 2011

I'm going to disagree, while it work well in trench warfare, trenches wasn't new, it was a often used defensive doctrine, as such they could see the benefits to use this against fortification. While likely only see a few be build, but if they show any potential, more can be build.

David S Poepoe · Apr 19, 2011

Valdemar II said:
I'm going to disagree, while it work well in trench warfare, trenches wasn't new, it was a often used defensive doctrine, as such they could see the benefits to use this against fortification. While likely only see a few be build, but if they show any potential, more can be build.

The two best PODs to make this more likely to happen would be Austro-Hungarian military observers during the Second Anglo-Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War. The use of trenches were extensive at the siege of Port Arthur. It is a war that the lessons from were quickly forgotten and had to be relearned.

It is entirely possible that the AH tanks would be used differently in the campaigns in the Balkans, the invasion of Serbia, and the against the Russians.

Josephus · Apr 19, 2011

The Burstyn tank was expressly designed for trench-crossing ability, with those outriggers. Trenches were nothing new, what was unprecedented was the scale of trench warfare. On the eastern front, the A-Hs would have fared better with armored cars, which they also were in a good position to acquire before anyone else, but there was considerable resistance from FJI and his often equally senile Generals and Field Marshals against such newfangled contraptions that would spook the horses.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 19, 2011

David S Poepoe said:
The two best PODs to make this more likely to happen would be Austro-Hungarian military observers during the Second Anglo-Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War. The use of trenches were extensive at the siege of Port Arthur. It is a war that the lessons from were quickly forgotten and had to be relearned.

It is entirely possible that the AH tanks would be used differently in the campaigns in the Balkans, the invasion of Serbia, and the against the Russians.

There were several and their writings were ignored. Several were reassigned after complaining their observations were cherry-picked for info that supported existing doctrine.

Josephus said:
The Burstyn tank was expressly designed for trench-crossing ability, with those outriggers. Trenches were nothing new, what was unprecedented was the scale of trench warfare. On the eastern front, the A-Hs would have fared better with armored cars, which they also were in a good position to acquire before anyone else, but there was considerable resistance from FJI and his often equally senile Generals and Field Marshals against such newfangled contraptions that would spook the horses.

It was really a funding issue, not institutional inertia.

Valdemar II said:
I'm going to disagree, while it work well in trench warfare, trenches wasn't new, it was a often used defensive doctrine, as such they could see the benefits to use this against fortification. While likely only see a few be build, but if they show any potential, more can be build.

As was stated above, trench warfare on scale of OTL was unexpected and most trenches encountered by AH in the war that were accessible by tanks were surmountable without tanks. Money was needed for other more important projects like modernizing artillery, training, extra soldiers, machine guns, etc. A breakthrough vehicle was at the bottom of the list, especially because the much cheaper armored cars were too expensive pre-war too.

Fearless Leader · Apr 19, 2011

With regards to funding, I don't see why the Austro-Hungarians having seen the need for a trench crossing vehicle, couldn't build fewer Tegetthoff class Battleships (In OTL they built 4, perhaps in TTL they build 2 or 3. Surely the same resources that went into building a dreadnought could be used in TTL to build a hundred or so Burstyn Motorgeschütz and perhaps some armored cars. Considering that for the most part the Tegetthoff class sat in port, I don't see their absence as being a huge deal.

These Motorgeschützen, perhaps organized into a platoon or company depending on the number produced, would acquit themselves well in the opening phases of the Serbian Campaign. This attracts the interests of the Germans and before long the Central Powers have the edge in the armored vehicle race.

Then again the production of the Motorgeschütz could tip off other major powers into looking into similar vehicles.

Deleted member 1487 · Apr 19, 2011

Fearless Leader said:
With regards to funding, I don't see why the Austro-Hungarians having seen the need for a trench crossing vehicle, couldn't build fewer Tegetthoff class Battleships (In OTL they built 4, perhaps in TTL they build 2 or 3. Surely the same resources that went into building a dreadnought could be used in TTL to build a hundred or so Burstyn Motorgeschütz and perhaps some armored cars. Considering that for the most part the Tegetthoff class sat in port, I don't see their absence as being a huge deal.

These Motorgeschützen, perhaps organized into a platoon or company depending on the number produced, would acquit themselves well in the opening phases of the Serbian Campaign. This attracts the interests of the Germans and before long the Central Powers have the edge in the armored vehicle race.

Then again the production of the Motorgeschütz could tip off other major powers into looking into similar vehicles.

And this would only be with hindsight. The AHs also had to play power politics by keeping up with the Italians in the Adriatic or finish their artillery rearmament program, which was only half finished in 1914 due to lack of funds. So you see there are greater spending priorities than tanks.

Fearless Leader · Apr 19, 2011

wiking said:
And this would only be with hindsight. The AHs also had to play power politics by keeping up with the Italians in the Adriatic or finish their artillery rearmament program, which was only half finished in 1914 due to lack of funds. So you see there are greater spending priorities than tanks.

I'm not so sure, given the right amount of political support, I could see the Austrians making a slight shift in production priority to accommodate the production of a few dozen Motorgeschützen. Perhaps as a part of a a larger plan featuring less naval construction and increased emphasis towards re-equipping the Army with artillery and a few tanks...

Like Valdemar said, earlier only a few need to be produced and see action for their potential to be seen in WWI.

Josephus · Apr 20, 2011

To get money for more than the barest essentials, you'd have to get rid of the Hungarian magnates, and their starving of any common institution. Universal suffrage instituted in the Lands of St.Stephen's crown would do the job nicely.

Austrian tank before WWI

Valdemar II

Deleted member 1487

Valdemar II

David S Poepoe

Josephus

Deleted member 1487

Fearless Leader

Deleted member 1487

Fearless Leader

Josephus