Ok, I was browsing Youtube recently looking for World of Tanks guides when I came across the April Fool video showing the P1000 Ratte (the one with the twin 11.5" turret). now, it's pretty obvious that whoever wanted to spend any time and effort working this up as a concept was clearly smoking some serious ersatz tobacco.
It did get me thinking however, is/are there a plausible POD(s) that could lead to much larger armoured land vehicles in the first half of the 20th century (I would suggest that by the time aircraft had advanced to late WWII levels, the concept would be obsolete)? If there is, what would such vehicles be used for, and what would their capabilities be? What tactics would they employ and what tactics would be developed for stopping them? What other technology would have to be developed to enable their successful deployment?
What I came up with was the idea of something in the 200-400 ton range, with a main armament of a single 12" naval gun in a hull mount with limited tranverse but good elevation/depression. Power probably initially from oil-fired steam boilers (but could obviously use diesel engines as these are developed), with electric transmission (for several reasons, including the ease of powering multiple track units, damage resilience, and much more simple engineering (no gearing, clutches, or brakes required)). Secondary weapons would be mounted in auxiliary turrets, casemates, or barbettes and would probably consist of machine guns and mortars/howitzers for anti-infantry use, with AA machine guns and cannon on later models.
As far as transmission goes, I'm thinking multiple track units on each side, independently sprung/damped to give a wide range of movement and powered by electric motors within each unit. Overall I'd expect ground pressure to be about the same as a Churchill or a KV-1, and it should be possible to continue operating with one or two track units damaged or destroyed.
What would such a vehicle be used for? My thinking was they're designed purely to break through hardened defensive positions like the Maginot Line or similar, taking out strongpoints and rolling over trench systems to create gaps that can be exploited by tanks and infantry. They wouldn't be available in huge numbers, maybe 10-20 on each side, and controlled at Army level. There would still be a role for more conventional tanks and armoured vehicles on more open warfare, where if they were used at all it would probably be as long-range artillery well behind the front line (of course the best way to defeat one of these vehicles might well be a shot or two from the main gun of another one).
What would they be called? I don't think they're just 'big tanks', sheer size and the difference in employment (not to mention propaganda reasons) might dictate another name. Maybe 'Juggernauts' or 'Behemoths' (possibly 'Grendels' for those of Germanic origin)?
As far as defeating them, I'd expect them to have thick enough main armour that barring a lucky hit from a concentrated artillery barrage or dive bombing, it would take a hit from very heavy artillery (9" plus guns) to penetrate the bridge, main gun bay, or engineering spaces. I'd expect secondary armament positions to have some protection (maybe even an inch or two of armour), but they'd be outside the main armour scheme and more or less expendable (there'd probably be the facility for the crew to retreat inside the main citadel if they came under heavy bombardment). It might be that infantry with breaching charges, grenades, and submachine guns (not to mention the various implements used in trench raids) might be an effective counter, albeit with high casualties (I could see any soldier attacking one of these, destroying/capturing it and surviving getting a big medal, promotion (battlefield commission?), and having his name known by pretty much everyone on either side).
What other technology would be needed for their deployment? Well the obvious point raised by most critics of the idea is the lack of suitable bridges, closely followed by the lack of suitable roads. Since they're intended for breaching trench lines and similar, and massive structures in their own right, I'd imagine fording small to medium sized rivers would be the easy solution, even if work needed to be done to grade slopes on either side (note that this is for movement behind the lines, not under fire). Failing that, the development of something like the Bailey Bridge (modular, with sections capable of being bolted together to make larger units capable of handling the weight) would probably be a high priority, as might perforated steel modular roadway sections for crossing softer ground (and to spread the load at the ends of those modular bridges). RoRo shipping might also be needed earlier, particularly if the British build any (not particularly for amphibious assault, but because going over a beach is likely to be a lot quicker and easier than finding dock facilities capable of handling such a large object).
So, how could such vehicles develop? My thoughts were possibly with an altered WWI - maybe during the war as it happened IOTL, maybe due to a longer and less conclusive war. Possibly no US entry, and no (or different) Russian Revolution, leading to a very different 1918 with no armistice, the war dragging into 1919, when eventually both sides negotiate an armistice and possibly a peace treaty that nobody's happy with (effectively WWI is a 'no score draw', and definitely not 'the war to end all wars'). This leads to a cold war in the 1920s, which goes hot again in the mid to late 1920s or possibly the early 1930s.
Thoughts?
It did get me thinking however, is/are there a plausible POD(s) that could lead to much larger armoured land vehicles in the first half of the 20th century (I would suggest that by the time aircraft had advanced to late WWII levels, the concept would be obsolete)? If there is, what would such vehicles be used for, and what would their capabilities be? What tactics would they employ and what tactics would be developed for stopping them? What other technology would have to be developed to enable their successful deployment?
What I came up with was the idea of something in the 200-400 ton range, with a main armament of a single 12" naval gun in a hull mount with limited tranverse but good elevation/depression. Power probably initially from oil-fired steam boilers (but could obviously use diesel engines as these are developed), with electric transmission (for several reasons, including the ease of powering multiple track units, damage resilience, and much more simple engineering (no gearing, clutches, or brakes required)). Secondary weapons would be mounted in auxiliary turrets, casemates, or barbettes and would probably consist of machine guns and mortars/howitzers for anti-infantry use, with AA machine guns and cannon on later models.
As far as transmission goes, I'm thinking multiple track units on each side, independently sprung/damped to give a wide range of movement and powered by electric motors within each unit. Overall I'd expect ground pressure to be about the same as a Churchill or a KV-1, and it should be possible to continue operating with one or two track units damaged or destroyed.
What would such a vehicle be used for? My thinking was they're designed purely to break through hardened defensive positions like the Maginot Line or similar, taking out strongpoints and rolling over trench systems to create gaps that can be exploited by tanks and infantry. They wouldn't be available in huge numbers, maybe 10-20 on each side, and controlled at Army level. There would still be a role for more conventional tanks and armoured vehicles on more open warfare, where if they were used at all it would probably be as long-range artillery well behind the front line (of course the best way to defeat one of these vehicles might well be a shot or two from the main gun of another one).
What would they be called? I don't think they're just 'big tanks', sheer size and the difference in employment (not to mention propaganda reasons) might dictate another name. Maybe 'Juggernauts' or 'Behemoths' (possibly 'Grendels' for those of Germanic origin)?
As far as defeating them, I'd expect them to have thick enough main armour that barring a lucky hit from a concentrated artillery barrage or dive bombing, it would take a hit from very heavy artillery (9" plus guns) to penetrate the bridge, main gun bay, or engineering spaces. I'd expect secondary armament positions to have some protection (maybe even an inch or two of armour), but they'd be outside the main armour scheme and more or less expendable (there'd probably be the facility for the crew to retreat inside the main citadel if they came under heavy bombardment). It might be that infantry with breaching charges, grenades, and submachine guns (not to mention the various implements used in trench raids) might be an effective counter, albeit with high casualties (I could see any soldier attacking one of these, destroying/capturing it and surviving getting a big medal, promotion (battlefield commission?), and having his name known by pretty much everyone on either side).
What other technology would be needed for their deployment? Well the obvious point raised by most critics of the idea is the lack of suitable bridges, closely followed by the lack of suitable roads. Since they're intended for breaching trench lines and similar, and massive structures in their own right, I'd imagine fording small to medium sized rivers would be the easy solution, even if work needed to be done to grade slopes on either side (note that this is for movement behind the lines, not under fire). Failing that, the development of something like the Bailey Bridge (modular, with sections capable of being bolted together to make larger units capable of handling the weight) would probably be a high priority, as might perforated steel modular roadway sections for crossing softer ground (and to spread the load at the ends of those modular bridges). RoRo shipping might also be needed earlier, particularly if the British build any (not particularly for amphibious assault, but because going over a beach is likely to be a lot quicker and easier than finding dock facilities capable of handling such a large object).
So, how could such vehicles develop? My thoughts were possibly with an altered WWI - maybe during the war as it happened IOTL, maybe due to a longer and less conclusive war. Possibly no US entry, and no (or different) Russian Revolution, leading to a very different 1918 with no armistice, the war dragging into 1919, when eventually both sides negotiate an armistice and possibly a peace treaty that nobody's happy with (effectively WWI is a 'no score draw', and definitely not 'the war to end all wars'). This leads to a cold war in the 1920s, which goes hot again in the mid to late 1920s or possibly the early 1930s.
Thoughts?
