I know its relativky implausable but lets just say that some one invented a tank or armored vehicle during the American Civil War. Obviously this would create a large change in how the war was fought. What changes could these armored vehicles bring to history not only during the ACW but after it as well
Tanks in ACW
- Thread starter American_Samurai
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
American_Samurai said:
Hmmmm.... RELATIVELY implausible ??? I mean the ONLY possibility is that we are talking some kind of non-rail steam-driven behemoth ! At this period its not going to go very far or very easily, and would achieve little...
If you are thinking some kind of Draka-esque vision from what I understand of that timeline it has several decades of change behind it
Grey Wolf
If you would excuse me for a laugh, the hilarious image of the foot-powered tank (a la The Flintstones) just popped into my head. The foot power needed to move a big hunk of metal with a cannon inside would be tremendous, not to mention suffocating with all the smoke being generated. A tank of that era would most likely be the idea that results from drinking too much whiskey.
In William R. Forstchen books, the humans and Hordes had tanks by book six, IIRC. The tanks were massive and cumbersome, and weren't very reliable. Maybe an early tank, basically a steel box with a cannon at the tip built around a powerful steam engine could be tested late in the war, and if the design was pursued, maybe the United States could have a workable tank.
If someone had invented this sterampowered box with a cannon or later a gatling gun, do you think it would have had effected the way the War tunred out? Possibly a quicker union victory, or a prolonged war with a possible (declared) CSA victory or stalemate? would there be a call to increase warfare technologies with the war possibly taking to the skies?
Effective tanks would have, trivially, made Grant's march on Richmond much easier (as in, over by the election of 1864). Immovable fortified cannon, on the other hand, would have made no difference at all.
But steam-powered tanks that could go off-road would only happen with ASBs or a 30-year war or something.
Actually, what might be interesting is a civil war slightly later, when they know about the oil in Texas. the Union races to capture the COnfederate supply while COnfederate scientists race to produce superweapons...
But steam-powered tanks that could go off-road would only happen with ASBs or a 30-year war or something.
Actually, what might be interesting is a civil war slightly later, when they know about the oil in Texas. the Union races to capture the COnfederate supply while COnfederate scientists race to produce superweapons...
armored trains
Wile they could be used in the same way armored trucks are used today, transporting money to the banks. The problem with armored trains is that they can only follow tracks. The easiest way to get the trains out of the picture would be to fight a distance far enough away from the tracks that the trains are deemed useless. unless methods were made to create tracks faster it would be hard to make trains a reliable offensive weapons.
Of corse the same could be said for these early tanks if they were to work but just work with me people. I
Wile they could be used in the same way armored trucks are used today, transporting money to the banks. The problem with armored trains is that they can only follow tracks. The easiest way to get the trains out of the picture would be to fight a distance far enough away from the tracks that the trains are deemed useless. unless methods were made to create tracks faster it would be hard to make trains a reliable offensive weapons.
Of corse the same could be said for these early tanks if they were to work but just work with me people. I
I stand corrected
No not that tanks couldn't work but the fact that armored trainsd could have made seiging cities easier
No not that tanks couldn't work but the fact that armored trainsd could have made seiging cities easier
Not really. You'd have to bring the rails within range of the city, which means lots of fatalities among the crews, plus you have a really hot boiler with lots of fuel next to a whole lot of ammunition. With the accurate, entrenched rifled cannon they had in the cities, they could make anything that didn't outrange them a sitting duck.
They did have rail-mounted mortars with miles-long ranges, but since those weren't used all that often it suggests to me that the problem of putting rails down where you wanted to go was more or less insuperable.
They did have rail-mounted mortars with miles-long ranges, but since those weren't used all that often it suggests to me that the problem of putting rails down where you wanted to go was more or less insuperable.
Grey Wolf said:
Well, by the 1880s people built so-called 'locomobiles' running on large, broadwheels for off-road use, and in the 1890s, someone invented the caterpillar tread. There's nothing inherent to the design that wouldn't be possible in 1860. The problem is, even with treads, steam locomobiles were hot, clunky maintenance nightmares.
I guess if the idea of treads had been around this might have been tried - once.
I read some where that the British used steam-powered tracked vehicles in the Crimean War.
Really, this isn't as implausible as some people are making it out to be. The caterpillar track, the basis for an armoured, tracked vehicle, was designed, albeit crudely, in 1770, almost a century before the ACW. Mikey is right, also, in that the British did use some large, steam-driven tractors using the caterpillar track, to manoeuvre on the Crimean War's muddy battlefields. The potential is there, but no one realized it. If we have some enlightened military strategist (or anyone, really) realize the potential for the vehicle, I see no reason that steam-powered tanks (probably using some sort of Gatling gun rather than the cannon we have in OTL, although that could come later.) couldn't duke it out in Union and Confederate forces.
Granted, steam powered tanks, in full service this early, would be blazing hot, claustrophobic nightmares, but that wouldn't be too different than the OTL tanks of WW1. I'm sure many soldiers would take armoured protection over comfort in the breeze.
Plus, it wouldn't be too hard to speed up the invention of the internal combustion engine, which, if I remember correctly, was invented in 1885, only twenty years after the ACW's end. If we could get an efficient gas powered engine during the Crimean War, tanks by the ACW gets a bit more plausible.
Granted, steam powered tanks, in full service this early, would be blazing hot, claustrophobic nightmares, but that wouldn't be too different than the OTL tanks of WW1. I'm sure many soldiers would take armoured protection over comfort in the breeze.
Plus, it wouldn't be too hard to speed up the invention of the internal combustion engine, which, if I remember correctly, was invented in 1885, only twenty years after the ACW's end. If we could get an efficient gas powered engine during the Crimean War, tanks by the ACW gets a bit more plausible.
The heat problem of a steam powered tank might be ameliorated by having the rear and most of the roof open and exposed for ventilation. This would also reduce the weight of armor it would carry. Such a vehicle would obviously require infantry support because of vulnerability to rear attacks.
But what is the weaponry? Gatling guns are just starting and prone to jamming. Artillery hasn't solved the recoil problem. I am not seeing this is as the great leap some people are fantaszing. It is likely to be a slow extremely awkward contraption prone to breakdowns and getting itself stuck.
But what is the weaponry? Gatling guns are just starting and prone to jamming. Artillery hasn't solved the recoil problem. I am not seeing this is as the great leap some people are fantaszing. It is likely to be a slow extremely awkward contraption prone to breakdowns and getting itself stuck.
Tom_B said:
You're pretty much right. It wouldn't be a great leap forward; but say these steam powered tanks are deployed during the ACW by Union forces, and a few on the Confederate side; with Gatling guns as their main armament. We'll say that, like in OTL, the Rebs go under at about the same time in 1865. With the proper funding and research after the war, and with a quicker design of the internal combustion engine, who's to say we couldn't have American tanks up to 1945 standards in 1914? Imagine a WW1 with blitzkrieg tactics, instead of the static trench war of OTL. It's certainly a possibility.