Earlier tanks
- Thread starter PMN1
- Start date
This could happen if the traditional cavalry types could be curbed, how you would manage that in Horse Guards I cannot imagine. However the Japanese may be receptive to the idea, after all they had just undergone massive changes in their administration. Then after their experiences in the Civil War the USA could easily see the possibilities. They had already used armed trains so it would be a logical progression for them.
Borys
Banned
Ahoj!
Austrians were first?
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm
AH had no Guards Cavalry
Borys
Austrians were first?
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm
AH had no Guards Cavalry
Borys
Why would that war bring about earlier tanks? It was unusual in casualties for the attacker of the period. But it was asians being killed by europeans! It should be so as to the mindset of peoples of the time. I don't think this would lead to any invention of tanks.
A quick overlook (just what I could pick up by quick search):
Russo-Japanese war:
japan 21,25 %
russia 6,25 %
ACW:
us 5 %
csa 8,7 %
Boer War:
british 1,7 %
Seven weeks war:
pruss. and allies 4,6 %
austrians 3,3 %
Franco-German war:
german 2,3 %
It showed how vulnerable traditional infantry and potentially cavalry had got to the machine gun which could only get worse as time and gun development went on.
Thinking about it I have remembered that the British Army used armoured trains in the Boar War. It would be a logical progression to make armoured vehicles that would work off the permanent way but the barrier would be the preponderance of cavalry officers in Horse Guards.
Did unveil this one http://www.ganesha-publishing.com/russo_jap_intro.htm
Who'd get the thought in such a climate?
I stake my claim!
Borys
Banned
Absolutely shocking! Who'd have thought! Cavalry officers in the Horse Guards? What were those Edwardians smoking ...
Borys
Flocculencio
Donor
Horse Guards was the name of the building that housed the British general staff HQ. Used in that sense it has nothing to do with any specific cavalry unit but is rather a shorthand for referring to the British General Staff, just like you would say "the Pentagon has decided to do <whatever>".
I think it is something of a myth that WW1 and pre-WW1 British military thinking is dominated by cavalry officers with brains next to their saddles and no capacity to cope with new ideas.
Flocculencio
Donor
Hmm, does this leave me with eggs over my face?
Borys
Kind of
The best way to escape would be to reveal that you were being sarcastic all along
Ahoj!
I'll be a man and take the egg on the chin ...
Borys
Wait, when did egg get all white and cream...?
Fell! Have you been screwing with the eggs again?! You and your food coloring.
Last edited:
MrP
Banned
Plumer's rather a good example of a forward-thinking chap for the period. Sensibly dismissed the idea of breaking through the enemy trenches fairly early on, IIRC.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I do believe that some steam tractors were employed at some point during the Anglo-Boer War. The War Office had a tremendous need for horses and so tractors were one way of filling the vacancies. Undoubtedly most of the tractors were not deployed at the front.
It wouldn't be too hard to imagine (if it wasn't done) armouring a tractor against small arms fire and providing a few ports to shoot out from. It would have a very limited range and its speed would equal that of a person walking, but it could be used in some fashion.
The thing is you would need a form of prolonged trench warfare at some point to really see the need for the tank. Cavalry can be ignored as they are traditionally a raiding party, or defensive screen, so what needs to be looked at is the infantry.
Now a tank made in 1905, maybe 1908 will be like the tanks made in 1916, large, hulking, slow moving, boxes. It offers little mobility, and to be honest would seem silly at the time. Infantry can run, hide, and do any number of things to defend themselves, and artillery can move up faster then a tank would. So the Generals at the time would not be clinging to tradition they would simply be looking at technology and a theory too far ahead for its time.
By the time of the Great War however, you may see a change depending on who experimented with tanks first. If on the Western Front in 1914 Germany has seven or eight of these things, their offensives could be more effective. Well effective until the shock value wears off.
Now a tank made in 1905, maybe 1908 will be like the tanks made in 1916, large, hulking, slow moving, boxes. It offers little mobility, and to be honest would seem silly at the time. Infantry can run, hide, and do any number of things to defend themselves, and artillery can move up faster then a tank would. So the Generals at the time would not be clinging to tradition they would simply be looking at technology and a theory too far ahead for its time.
By the time of the Great War however, you may see a change depending on who experimented with tanks first. If on the Western Front in 1914 Germany has seven or eight of these things, their offensives could be more effective. Well effective until the shock value wears off.
As well as cavalry being the queen of the battlefield, you also have the theory that elan and a bayonet could take position. OK so you will take casualties, but you will still win.
Moreover the Russo Japanese War is no guide to the next war any more than the American Civil War. Two of the three countries are not serious military powers and thus you can not draw lessons from the war, or so many German, French and British generals would have said.
Moreover the Russo Japanese War is no guide to the next war any more than the American Civil War. Two of the three countries are not serious military powers and thus you can not draw lessons from the war, or so many German, French and British generals would have said.