Armored trains post ww2
- Thread starter Monk78
- Start date
well this one was built in serbia during the Balkan break up of the early 1990's
and this was Croatia's response.
so post WW2 someone at least sort that armoured trains had a use in their conflict.
and this was Croatia's response.
so post WW2 someone at least sort that armoured trains had a use in their conflict.
I could see the 'HQ train' continuing in use. It could make them relatively mobile but without the need to keep on (un)packing all the stuff all the time. They can [I suspect] also be protected from NBC too. Only problem is that like MKD points out, they're relatively easier to find/destroy than a convoy of lorries / staff cars.
There are also 'hospital trains'. They saw prolific use in both World Wars, and seemingly survived to Korea. Some of these were merely casualty stations, while others contained 'proper' operating theatres and wards. The Russians still have a few, running in the more backward parts of Siberia.
However, the 'armoured train' is generally a technological dead-end. Once areas of the world have as good or better road infrastructure than rail [usually, 50s onwards] a train is less efficient. The Soviets continued with theirs because their road infrastructure long lagged behind, and the Yugoslavian examples are more cases of makeshift solutions with what you've got on-hand. Hospital trains generally died out when medivac via helicopter to a 'proper' hospital became a viable option.
There are also 'hospital trains'. They saw prolific use in both World Wars, and seemingly survived to Korea. Some of these were merely casualty stations, while others contained 'proper' operating theatres and wards. The Russians still have a few, running in the more backward parts of Siberia.
However, the 'armoured train' is generally a technological dead-end. Once areas of the world have as good or better road infrastructure than rail [usually, 50s onwards] a train is less efficient. The Soviets continued with theirs because their road infrastructure long lagged behind, and the Yugoslavian examples are more cases of makeshift solutions with what you've got on-hand. Hospital trains generally died out when medivac via helicopter to a 'proper' hospital became a viable option.
Last edited:
Easier said than done, especially when missile targeting systems are still in their infancy during the early stages of the Cold War.
Here's an article that mentions two interesting Russian uses of armored trains post-World War 2. The main thrust of the article is about their use in counterinsurgency operations, and I agree that's probably where they make the most sense. But the more interesting part to me was the mention of Russian development of armored trains in their Far East region after the Sino-Soviet border clashes in the '60s. From what I've read it sounds like the Soviets mostly viewed their armored trains in that theatre as tank transporters to move defensive forces to wherever the Chinese were trying to break through, but they were armored and armed, and would have been relatively likely to get into action themselves.
In particular, I think the Sino-Soviet border in the late '70s illustrates a lot of desirable features if you want to craft an ATL where armored trains have a comeback in popularity: It's relatively sparsely populated and extremely large, so troop transport on rails makes a lot of sense; at least one of the combatants thinks it has technological and particularily air superiority to the point that some of the worries about relying on a large, limited maneuverability armored vehicle are minimized, and the technology and tactics of the time and combatants means that they want to bring large quantities of artillery with them right to the battlefront (a role armored trains are well-suited for).
Actually, typing all that out makes me wonder if, in an ATL with more northern rail routes, Canada would have created a couple of similar trains for the Canadian Rangers in the '50s as a low-cost way to ward off the threat of Soviet paratroop attacks (a threat that the OTL Canadian Parachute Regiment was initially set up to contain in a fight fire with fire sort of theory)
In particular, I think the Sino-Soviet border in the late '70s illustrates a lot of desirable features if you want to craft an ATL where armored trains have a comeback in popularity: It's relatively sparsely populated and extremely large, so troop transport on rails makes a lot of sense; at least one of the combatants thinks it has technological and particularily air superiority to the point that some of the worries about relying on a large, limited maneuverability armored vehicle are minimized, and the technology and tactics of the time and combatants means that they want to bring large quantities of artillery with them right to the battlefront (a role armored trains are well-suited for).
Actually, typing all that out makes me wonder if, in an ATL with more northern rail routes, Canada would have created a couple of similar trains for the Canadian Rangers in the '50s as a low-cost way to ward off the threat of Soviet paratroop attacks (a threat that the OTL Canadian Parachute Regiment was initially set up to contain in a fight fire with fire sort of theory)
Trooos can blow off tracks since 1890s but now you can support your train with helo surveillance and also with screening troops
If you have helicopters, why do you need the train? If you have motorised/mechanised troops, why do you need the train? Anyway, the Soviet 'armoured trains' sound more like mass transporters than anything else - which was very sane, as the USSR's road network was often very poor, 'Russian gauge' is more versatile for 'outsize freight' than standard [example; the British Centurion tank was almost scrapped in development due to it being 'too big' for rail transporters] and the USSR's sheer physical size means a form of 'rapid deployment' is needed.
One very important issue is that the 'armoured train' is basically incompatible with electrification - the overhead power lines would get in the way of any gun which fired upwards, for starters. Interestingly, only around 30% of the Soviet rail system was electrified by 1991. The network will also have other 'limitations', such as the physical size of loads [must get through tunnels] and weight [for bridges, rail buckling etc].
One very important issue is that the 'armoured train' is basically incompatible with electrification - the overhead power lines would get in the way of any gun which fired upwards, for starters. Interestingly, only around 30% of the Soviet rail system was electrified by 1991. The network will also have other 'limitations', such as the physical size of loads [must get through tunnels] and weight [for bridges, rail buckling etc].
Tracks are easy to repair/rebuild. Key bridges and tunnels will be well protected.
Hitting the locomotive/cargo is the really the only option if you want to target an enemy's rail system.
You are not protecting hundreds of miles of track. And yes it can be repaired, but It is easier to blow up then to repair and you will lose more resources keeping it running then I will blowing it up.
And depending on the size of the trains (typically getting larger as tge years go buy). It is not THAT easy to fix a bridge. In the ACW it was easy. In WW2 it could be done but was much harder. In the US in WW2 where we used 2-6-6-6 and 4-8-8-4 and such you need a REALLY strong bridge. And yes you can Guard key bridges but if I am in range of you train then you train it’s track and it’s bridges are in range of my guns as well.
And if you have enough men to protect it or it is so far behind lines then what do you need an armored train for in the first place.?
The. concept sounds great but...... in reality? Not so much. I suppose in some locations early in the 20th century they may have been useful (such as parts of Africa) but post WW2? Nope. Rockets, artillery, aircraft and the odd demolition charge just make it to easy to take out and all that and aircraft just make them unnecessary
And depending on the size of the trains (typically getting larger as tge years go buy). It is not THAT easy to fix a bridge. In the ACW it was easy. In WW2 it could be done but was much harder. In the US in WW2 where we used 2-6-6-6 and 4-8-8-4 and such you need a REALLY strong bridge. And yes you can Guard key bridges but if I am in range of you train then you train it’s track and it’s bridges are in range of my guns as well.
And if you have enough men to protect it or it is so far behind lines then what do you need an armored train for in the first place.?
The. concept sounds great but...... in reality? Not so much. I suppose in some locations early in the 20th century they may have been useful (such as parts of Africa) but post WW2? Nope. Rockets, artillery, aircraft and the odd demolition charge just make it to easy to take out and all that and aircraft just make them unnecessary
"Nothing looks more formidable and impressive than an armoured train; but nothing is in fact more vulnerable and helpless. It was only necessary to blow up a bridge of culvert to leave the monster stranded, far from home and help, at the mercy of the enemy."
As the person who wrote this was Churchill and said 'disabled armoured train' led to him being captured by the Boers during said war, he might have had a point...
As the person who wrote this was Churchill and said 'disabled armoured train' led to him being captured by the Boers during said war, he might have had a point...
mial42
Gone Fishin'
The heyday of the armored train was the Russian Civil War, and I think it suggests four major prerequisites for serious use of armored trains:
1) Both sides (or however many sides there are, like the RCW) desperately need the rail lines and are willing to shoot anyone who intentionally damages them as saboteurs.
2) No one has tanks or similar mechanization, which are just better then armored trains because they're far more flexible.
3) At least one side has access to modern artillery and (to a lesser extent; armor can be improvised) armor to make the trains in the first place.
4) Front lines are highly mobile, since otherwise you can just dismount the artillery for easier concealment/aiming.
There aren't very many conflicts that really hit all of those; in most cases where (3) and (4) are true, (2) and usually (1) are false, and vice-versa.
1) Both sides (or however many sides there are, like the RCW) desperately need the rail lines and are willing to shoot anyone who intentionally damages them as saboteurs.
2) No one has tanks or similar mechanization, which are just better then armored trains because they're far more flexible.
3) At least one side has access to modern artillery and (to a lesser extent; armor can be improvised) armor to make the trains in the first place.
4) Front lines are highly mobile, since otherwise you can just dismount the artillery for easier concealment/aiming.
There aren't very many conflicts that really hit all of those; in most cases where (3) and (4) are true, (2) and usually (1) are false, and vice-versa.
I had another thought:
IMO the most promising option for the role of an armored train is as an armored transport. Building a specialized train to transport a tactical strike force and then support them with artillery fire from protected guns onboard makes using a railroad system which is too high-risk for unarmored trains (because light weapons could either cause a boiler explosion or heavy casualties on any infantry inside who would be unable to fight back until they disembarked) practical.
These are likely to be expensive, if only thanks to their sheer scale. ( I acknowledge that there is also a possibility that largely improvised armored trains, like this one could become common, but I'm ignoring them for the moment,)
This vehicle also requires a certain amount of tactical competence from the army of the nation that builds it if it is to be used effectively. It is inherently designed for combined arms operations: it's intended as a command and control and fire support (and maybe air defense) node for an infantry / armor assault (or other purpose) force.
It's also a weapon that's tied to a specific kind of infrastructure: long-distance railroads.
I suspect that these are most attractive in theatres which the General Staff in question considers secondary, since one of the main attractions is the ability of the train to support a small force without requiring much additional logistic support. In my last post I noted that the Soviets planned for the possibility of deploying such trains if they ended up at war on their eastern front with China, without being attracted to them for use on their western front with NATO. This time I want to consider an ATL possibility for a theatre making such trains attractive to planners on the other side of the armored curtain.
We need a country with at least some traditional anti-American sentiment to make the possibility of a threat plausible enough that the US might fund a weapon system specifically to defend against it. This country needs to share a land border with the US to make trains rather than the navy the most attractive option to stop a potential invasion/ lead a potential counterattack. And we need a time and place where fear of a breakdown in road-based logistics and a very specific threat level mean that operating relatively small forces independently is viewed as an acceptable element of a robust countermeasure.
The first POD of my proposed ATL is the Eisenhower administration not creating the National Highway System, and preferably investing in rail networks instead.
The second POD is the election in Mexico of a socialist administration that, at least in the US, is viewed as being Soviet-aligned.
The third is the outbreak, somewhere in the American Southwest, of some kind of insurgent/terrorist actions which are viewed, again by the US, as linked to Mexico (again, whether they are actually linked or not is irrelevant.)
This is an admittedly implausible scenario, but I think that if it happened an American Army faced with the possibility of having to fight Mexico with a dubious road network near the border, a fear of insurgent activity in its rear zones, and a fear that any activity from Mexico might be linked to other Soviet sphere attacks on American interests elsewhere, would view an armored transport train as a viable low-cost technological solution.
IMO the most promising option for the role of an armored train is as an armored transport. Building a specialized train to transport a tactical strike force and then support them with artillery fire from protected guns onboard makes using a railroad system which is too high-risk for unarmored trains (because light weapons could either cause a boiler explosion or heavy casualties on any infantry inside who would be unable to fight back until they disembarked) practical.
These are likely to be expensive, if only thanks to their sheer scale. ( I acknowledge that there is also a possibility that largely improvised armored trains, like this one could become common, but I'm ignoring them for the moment,)
This vehicle also requires a certain amount of tactical competence from the army of the nation that builds it if it is to be used effectively. It is inherently designed for combined arms operations: it's intended as a command and control and fire support (and maybe air defense) node for an infantry / armor assault (or other purpose) force.
It's also a weapon that's tied to a specific kind of infrastructure: long-distance railroads.
I suspect that these are most attractive in theatres which the General Staff in question considers secondary, since one of the main attractions is the ability of the train to support a small force without requiring much additional logistic support. In my last post I noted that the Soviets planned for the possibility of deploying such trains if they ended up at war on their eastern front with China, without being attracted to them for use on their western front with NATO. This time I want to consider an ATL possibility for a theatre making such trains attractive to planners on the other side of the armored curtain.
We need a country with at least some traditional anti-American sentiment to make the possibility of a threat plausible enough that the US might fund a weapon system specifically to defend against it. This country needs to share a land border with the US to make trains rather than the navy the most attractive option to stop a potential invasion/ lead a potential counterattack. And we need a time and place where fear of a breakdown in road-based logistics and a very specific threat level mean that operating relatively small forces independently is viewed as an acceptable element of a robust countermeasure.
The first POD of my proposed ATL is the Eisenhower administration not creating the National Highway System, and preferably investing in rail networks instead.
The second POD is the election in Mexico of a socialist administration that, at least in the US, is viewed as being Soviet-aligned.
The third is the outbreak, somewhere in the American Southwest, of some kind of insurgent/terrorist actions which are viewed, again by the US, as linked to Mexico (again, whether they are actually linked or not is irrelevant.)
This is an admittedly implausible scenario, but I think that if it happened an American Army faced with the possibility of having to fight Mexico with a dubious road network near the border, a fear of insurgent activity in its rear zones, and a fear that any activity from Mexico might be linked to other Soviet sphere attacks on American interests elsewhere, would view an armored transport train as a viable low-cost technological solution.
Which is basically partly what the Soviets were thinking. If I remember right, many of the 'border clashes' involved small-ish infantry detachments having hit-and-run attacks done on them. That this transporter could deliver a dozen tanks pretty close to said area and have them turn up in time to turn the tables. These armoured trains could also carry some specialists too, such as engineers, bridging equipment etc as well as functioning as a mobile HQ.
The point of using it as an artillery platform is even more dubious when you consider that it would be more efficient to simply use aircraft - either plane or helicopter - for the fire support. Plus, there's always the issue that the train may not even get close enough to use their artillery. [However, it could deliver SP guns].
One other use can be as a moveable supply dump. Modern war consumes materiel fast, and having a few railway cars pre-loaded with gear able to be immediately sent semi-close to the area would - I think - be a help.
The point of using it as an artillery platform is even more dubious when you consider that it would be more efficient to simply use aircraft - either plane or helicopter - for the fire support. Plus, there's always the issue that the train may not even get close enough to use their artillery. [However, it could deliver SP guns].
One other use can be as a moveable supply dump. Modern war consumes materiel fast, and having a few railway cars pre-loaded with gear able to be immediately sent semi-close to the area would - I think - be a help.
What kind of protection do the trains that transport nukes across country get?
If I remember correctly, they at least have one car filled with soldiers, and generally travel at 35 miles per hour. There’s a full white train consist in Armarillo Texas.
Edit: Link to an article: https://www.history.com/news/nuclear-transportation-u-s-white-trains-cold-war
Last edited: