Impact of Alternate History on Military Equipment?

On the military developments front, Thande's Look to the West goes borderline steampunk, with several powers developing military towing tractors and self-propelled artillery guns already in the 19th century. With steam propulsion, of course. Nothing fancy or fast, but gives certain sides a technological edge before newer technology shows up.

On that note, back in the day I told Thande that I consider his use of steam vehicles in LTTW rather less than plausible that early they become commonplace in the TL. After the 1850s, or 1860s, though, I could definitely see lighter-than-OTL steam tractors and even primitive self-propelled guns to be adopted in some nations: in comparison to the OTL, that would have required the steam carriage effort of the 1830s to continue in Britain and in France, and spread to the German areas as well. IOTL, the good beginnings in Britain were essentially killed by a combination of too unrealistic expectations from the get-go and the railway industry (and the railway mania) taking up most of the resources and interest that could have been realistically invested into steam on the roads and streets (and eventually off-road as well). The development (and adoption, and combining) of the suitable materials, like strong and resilient enough steel for the chassis, drivetrain and engine parts, or rubber for the wheels, the miniaturisation of the high pressure steam engine (with necessary reduction in weight), creating working suspension and power transmission, etc, would have happened faster if there was a continuous research tradition since the early days, a tradition that in Britain was lost IOTL to a big degree in the 1840s. After that, in the absence of a continued, independent steam carriage/steam car tradition, to put it in simplified terms for several decades most steam vehicles on the road IOTL were small railway locomotives on artillery wheels.

At the end of the line, by the 1880s we could have had surprisingly functional and fast steam cars on the roads, adopted across Europe and America, and quite likely the adoption of internal combustion vehicles would have been lot more of an uphill struggle in the face of established steam motoring on the roads and highways. In fact I could see that in such a TL, for some time the internal combustion engine (the "explosion engine") could be seen as explicitly an aircraft power source, a niche innovation, until it starts gaining popularity as a car motor as well.
 
Last edited:
The Anglo-American Nazi War has a very different 1945-1960 Defense calculus than OTL but we still see the West adopt the exact same weapons in many cases. I appreciate that, because there would likely have been a fighter designated F-105, likely been a fast heavy fighter-bomber, and just saying “Republic F-105 Thunderchief” instead of a basically identical “Grumman F-102 Fatboy” makes the story much more accessible. Very small PODs will give us very different weapons systems, but ultimately I don’t think weapons systems are as important as the whole military machine they’re part of
 
At the end of the line, by the 1880s we could have had surprisingly functional and fast steam cars on the roads, adopted across Europe and America, and quite likely the adoption of internal combustion vehicles would have been lot more of an uphill struggle in the face of established steam motoring on the roads and highways.
I'm less sure IC cars wouldn't fairly rapidly dominate anyhow. Steam is more complicated, less thermally efficient, & more difficult to use (just frex, even with flash boiler, about a 15min warmup period). Even diesel trumps fairly readily.

That said, if steam traction does become common, it's going to impact more than just cars. It will mean armored cars come along much earlier than OTL, which means *MG, & semi-auto rifle, are needed/wanted; *AT guns, too: maybe all the way up to the *M1897 howitzer (HE & hydraulic recoil mechanism: firepower responding to mobility & armor). Something like halftracks & tanks are likely, too (tho maybe just 6/8-wheel AWD armored cars, with midships axle{s}); tracks deal better with rough country.

And if you have steam engines, earlier torpedoes is likely, too. So, too, earlier DDs. Maybe not earlier airships & a/c (given how heavy steam engines are).
say WWI ends indecisively, well that probably means no WNT, and the battleship race keeps going and they grow in size during the 20's to the point where by 1940 something like Yamato is the norm rather than the outlier.
Most of what you said seems reasonable, but this, I find dubious. There are issues of cost & geography. Does the Panama Canal exist, & is it comparable to OTL? If it is, USN (at least) is unlikely to build anything bigger than Iowa. Plus, the size of slipway is a factor, so Japan & Britain may not be able to build enormous BBs (even if other limits don't pertain). And a *Yamato is hideously expensive; build a lot more of them...:eek: Plus, for reasons IDK, as guns get above 16", their ballistic performance seems not to improve much, so there's scant gain in a 20"-armed Indefensible. ( :openedeyewink: )

How long does it take for navies to realize a/c are outranging guns, & delivering heavier payloads? Are subs carrying really good, long-range torpedoes? (Are DDs? Cruisers?)
 
I'm less sure IC cars wouldn't fairly rapidly dominate anyhow. Steam is more complicated, less thermally efficient, & more difficult to use (just frex, even with flash boiler, about a 15min warmup period). Even diesel trumps fairly readily.

I'd argue that the rationale for the adoption of internal combustion being slowed down would be path dependence, the achieved systemic dominance of steam on the roads. Just like the railway system killed steam on the roads in its cradle, a universal steam transport system on the roads and streets could be so entrenched by the time functional steam combustion engines come around that their adoption could be stalled by the existing interests not giving the new motor the time of day, it being hard to find established (steam) car makers to adopt the new power unit, and it being hard to find an access to the market for new car makers when the established companies dominate the market, etc. IOTL, there was no similar competition to internal combustion as steam and electric were comparatively weaker. The road was much more open for IC motors than in a TL I am envisioning here.

Then again, if there was a functional system of steam transport on the roads by the late 19th century, we could also argue that the combustion engine could take over the system from the inside pretty fast due to the fact that much of the needed innovations and systems for motor cars would already exist, it would be just the matter of replacing the power sources of vehicles. Maybe in such a TL, by the 1930s, say, the great majority of cars would be running on internal combustion, and we would have a highway system and a car culture in Europe and America that would be significantly more advanced than IOTL, due to the early adoption of steam cars and by that time long motoring tradition.


That said, if steam traction does become common, it's going to impact more than just cars. It will mean armored cars come along much earlier than OTL, which means *MG, & semi-auto rifle, are needed/wanted; *AT guns, too: maybe all the way up to the *M1897 howitzer (HE & hydraulic recoil mechanism: firepower responding to mobility & armor). Something like halftracks & tanks are likely, too (tho maybe just 6/8-wheel AWD armored cars, with midships axle{s}); tracks deal better with rough country.

And if you have steam engines, earlier torpedoes is likely, too. So, too, earlier DDs. Maybe not earlier airships & a/c (given how heavy steam engines are).

An earlier adoption of miniaturised steam engines (I'll mention that word again, as it is relevant) would of course be a systemic change, and thus affect weapons (systems) development as well. I'll grant you that steam is not exactly ideal for aircraft, though, and that is why I suggested that in a TL with early adoption (and sustained popularity) of steam cars IC might be first seen as an aircraft power source before it becomes commonplace in land vehicles.
 

Driftless

Donor
Often you also either need, or benefit from concurrence of other developments. i.e. advancements in metallurgy make higher(and different) forms of engines possible. To be sure, one line of development can drive research on the other. Sometimes it's making use of separate tracks of knowledge.

One of the ideas that was laid out above was earlier steam tractors. While they were used for farm work, that was typically in very small numbers in a given area and only in good weather. To use them in mass for either commercial or military purposes, you need a better road system; including an all-weather road bed and surface that will support such heavy weight; or you turn the whole works into impassable goo in no time. That road system required considerable investment in engineering, design, building, and maintainence (whether funded by public or private means).
 
I'd argue that the rationale for the adoption of internal combustion being slowed down would be path dependence, the achieved systemic dominance of steam on the roads.
The question in my mind is, how big a lead does steam have? If it's big enough, IMO, you'd be right, & IC (Otto or Diesel) would be no more than niche systems. Less than 25yr, IMO, IC supplants.
Maybe in such a TL, by the 1930s, say, the great majority of cars would be running on internal combustion, and we would have a highway system and a car culture in Europe and America that would be significantly more advanced than IOTL, due to the early adoption of steam cars and by that time long motoring tradition.
Again, when does steam hit the car market? If it's early enough, you're going to get highway networks & sophisticated cars; they'll be bigger than OTL (they'll have to be), but they'll be quiet in a way drivers today can't imagine. Filling stations might be more for water than fuel; you're going to want distilled water, IMO, not plain tap water. The aftermarket's going to look different, too; lighter weight parts might develop a lot sooner, to make up for the heavier engines, & to improve acceleration/braking.

Probably there's less endurance racing, tho... Or fuel/water stops are very, very fast, & frequent.
I'll grant you that steam is not exactly ideal for aircraft, though, and that is why I suggested that in a TL with early adoption (and sustained popularity) of steam cars IC might be first seen as an aircraft power source before it becomes commonplace in land vehicles.
IC might end up only being seen in aviation, maybe only in heavier-than-air.
 

I know about all that.

About a year ago, I discussed the very topic of "earlier perfection of steam-powered road vehicles" on an SFAF discussion forum of my country. You would not believe how many people are under the impression that sophisticated steam vehicles were not being successfully attempted in the early 19th century, before overzealous regulation and economic trends killed off most of the development until later that same century. One has to wonder how better-designed steam cars could have influenced the early development of petrol-powered vehicles.

Interesting observations on how the ICE could be seen as an innovation for aviation at first. Though, mind you, in OTL the Wright brothers based the Flyer engine on an early motorcycle engine. So, OTL already has land petrol engine innovation before aviation adopts it. (See also Santos Dumont's blimp flight in Paris in 1901. Petrol engine as well, IIRC.)
 
The question in my mind is, how big a lead does steam have? If it's big enough, IMO, you'd be right, & IC (Otto or Diesel) would be no more than niche systems. Less than 25yr, IMO, IC supplants.

Again, when does steam hit the car market? If it's early enough, you're going to get highway networks & sophisticated cars; they'll be bigger than OTL (they'll have to be), but they'll be quiet in a way drivers today can't imagine. Filling stations might be more for water than fuel; you're going to want distilled water, IMO, not plain tap water. The aftermarket's going to look different, too; lighter weight parts might develop a lot sooner, to make up for the heavier engines, & to improve acceleration/braking.

If the "London steam carriage tradition" continues into the 1840s and beyond, I think it would be possible to see somewhat successful commercial steam cars by the early 1860s. This is where the development was left off with Walter Hancock, arguably the most successful of the early British steam pioneers, in 1838 - Hancock's Steam Phaeton, dubbed by some historians the world's first private motor car:

phaeton.jpg


July 4th, 1838.

The preceding sheets were printed nearly two years ago; since that time I have brought out the Steam Phaeton shown in the title page, intended for my private use; it has seats for three persons, independent of the one steering. It has run principally in the City, and up on the roads in the east of London; but, within the last few days, I have occasionally run it in several parts of the west end of the town, principally in Hyde Park, amongst the throng of carriages and horses which are always to be found there on fine afternoons at this period of the year. Of course it did not fail of attracting notice, and as there was no noise, nor any appearance of steam, fire, or smoke, I was gratified to witness the general expression of approbation, as well as particular inquiries of several noblemen and gentlemen, some of whom were pleased to request a ride with me.

I have, with this carriage, gone at the rate of twenty miles an hour, but its usual rate is not more than from ten to twelve. My object in building it was to demonstrate, that my boiler is applicable to the propulsion of carriages for actual use on common roads, of any and every degree of power...

Source.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
IC might end up only being seen in aviation, maybe only in heavier-than-air.

I have an appropriately named, but un-read book in my library "Steam in the Air" by Maurice Kelly. Just going off the synopsis and a quick flip through, a fair exploration of 19th and 20th century attempts at using steam power for aviation power-plants.
 
Not unreasonable, but maybe too late, given Lenoir working on an IC engine around 1860, & Otto in 1876. What about Samuel Brown?

Well, given the state Lenoir's engine was in 1860 and how his motor vehicles apparently performed in the next few years, they would not yet be a threat to steam cars that are getting mechanically reliable and consistently manage sustained speeds in excess of 20-30 mph, like I am envisioning steam vehicles to do ITTL by the 1860s. But I agree that it is arguable that the success of steam on the roads might well spur the development of IC as well, and thus steam cars might have a shorter head start than they would need to get truly established before the challenge presented by internal combustion makes itself known.

Considering all the advances needed to get from the early steam carriages to practical commercial steam vehicles, though, without pre-1820s PODs I find it hard to see vehicles getting truly practical for wider adoption before the mid-1850s at the very earliest. There are so many different technical components that need to be done right and combined in the right way that it would not happen overnight in any case.
 
Well, given the state Lenoir's engine was in 1860 and how his motor vehicles apparently performed in the next few years, they would not yet be a threat to steam cars that are getting mechanically reliable and consistently manage sustained speeds in excess of 20-30 mph, like I am envisioning steam vehicles to do ITTL by the 1860s. But I agree that it is arguable that the success of steam on the roads might well spur the development of IC as well, and thus steam cars might have a shorter head start than they would need to get truly established before the challenge presented by internal combustion makes itself known.

Considering all the advances needed to get from the early steam carriages to practical commercial steam vehicles, though, without pre-1820s PODs I find it hard to see vehicles getting truly practical for wider adoption before the mid-1850s at the very earliest. There are so many different technical components that need to be done right and combined in the right way that it would not happen overnight in any case.
I'm not going to say Lenoir, or indeed Otto, were so big a threat to established steam cars...but they weren't alone, & if cars are established, it's a much smaller step to re-engine than invent them.

As for a pre-1820 POD, IDK...but there were a few inventors experimenting with steam cars in the 1810-20 (or so) period, & all (or most of) the rail-related work applies also to car engines, from higher operating pressure to fire tubes to water tubes to forced draft; maybe not compounding, but that's about the only one I'd say not. So, can you benefit from (frex) Trevithick?
 
I'm not going to say Lenoir, or indeed Otto, were so big a threat to established steam cars...but they weren't alone, & if cars are established, it's a much smaller step to re-engine than invent them.

As for a pre-1820 POD, IDK...but there were a few inventors experimenting with steam cars in the 1810-20 (or so) period, & all (or most of) the rail-related work applies also to car engines, from higher operating pressure to fire tubes to water tubes to forced draft; maybe not compounding, but that's about the only one I'd say not. So, can you benefit from (frex) Trevithick?

Trevithick's work was what got men like Goldsworthy Gurney and Walter Hancock going in the first place, and there already was a great deal of development from Trevithick to the late 1830s, so it is difficult to see how things could have progressed better at that point. The general problem, as I see it, was that there was a big number of people working on the invention, but there was little combination of their best findings. People tried, mostly alone, for a while, then ran into trouble (frequently it was mainly money running out) and abandoned their work. There were many individual technical problems to solve, and most people managed to improve this or that detail but still were left with a substandard overall vehicle. Hancock and Gurney were some of the few people who worked on the steam carriage for many years, instead of just committing to one-off efforts, and could improve upon their work in different ways. On balance, Hancock was much more on the right track than Gurney, and managed improvements to the steam engine, transmission, the wheels, steering, etc, through a trial and error method over twelve years.

So my idea for the invention to stick around post-1840 would be a small knot of (for some reason) well-funded inventor-entrepreneurs in Britain moving on with the results of Hancock, and combining the best ideas of all the rest, into a number of vehicles and successive generations in the 40s and 50s. Maybe we might through some happy coincidence get some of the best people who went into railway engineering get into steam cars instead, that would help as well, maybe even get some big railway company supporting the effort (instead of doing their best to kill it off in its cradle, as IOTL). The conceit would be that a railway magnate would see steam cars not as a potential rival, but as a solution for modern railway feeder traffic and utility vehicles, etc. instead of horse-drawn vehicles, a part of the growing railway system instead a threat to it. Given the amounts of capital that was invested into railways at the time, even a comparatively small slice of that money going into steam car development could already go a long way.
 
Trevithick's work was what got men like Goldsworthy Gurney and Walter Hancock going in the first place, and there already was a great deal of development from Trevithick to the late 1830s, so it is difficult to see how things could have progressed better at that point. The general problem, as I see it, was that there was a big number of people working on the invention, but there was little combination of their best findings. People tried, mostly alone, for a while, then ran into trouble (frequently it was mainly money running out) and abandoned their work. There were many individual technical problems to solve, and most people managed to improve this or that detail but still were left with a substandard overall vehicle. Hancock and Gurney were some of the few people who worked on the steam carriage for many years, instead of just committing to one-off efforts, and could improve upon their work in different ways. On balance, Hancock was much more on the right track than Gurney, and managed improvements to the steam engine, transmission, the wheels, steering, etc, through a trial and error method over twelve years.

So my idea for the invention to stick around post-1840 would be a small knot of (for some reason) well-funded inventor-entrepreneurs in Britain moving on with the results of Hancock, and combining the best ideas of all the rest, into a number of vehicles and successive generations in the 40s and 50s. Maybe we might through some happy coincidence get some of the best people who went into railway engineering get into steam cars instead, that would help as well, maybe even get some big railway company supporting the effort (instead of doing their best to kill it off in its cradle, as IOTL). The conceit would be that a railway magnate would see steam cars not as a potential rival, but as a solution for modern railway feeder traffic and utility vehicles, etc. instead of horse-drawn vehicles, a part of the growing railway system instead a threat to it. Given the amounts of capital that was invested into railways at the time, even a comparatively small slice of that money going into steam car development could already go a long way.
I've seen some of the names, too, but had no idea it was so diffuse. It appears you're right, there's no good way to accelerate things (much) before the 1840s. IDK anybody with money & interest...& I doubt you get a rwy magnate doing it. I'm picturing it being a rich dilettante, like Royce or Barnato in the 1900s; maybe somebody who's already financed a canal & wants steam carriages to deliver freight from it?
 
Most of what you said seems reasonable, but this, I find dubious. There are issues of cost & geography. Does the Panama Canal exist, & is it comparable to OTL? If it is, USN (at least) is unlikely to build anything bigger than Iowa. Plus, the size of slipway is a factor, so Japan & Britain may not be able to build enormous BBs (even if other limits don't pertain). And a *Yamato is hideously expensive; build a lot more of them...:eek: Plus, for reasons IDK, as guns get above 16", their ballistic performance seems not to improve much, so there's scant gain in a 20"-armed Indefensible. ( :openedeyewink: )

How long does it take for navies to realize a/c are outranging guns, & delivering heavier payloads? Are subs carrying really good, long-range torpedoes? (Are DDs? Cruisers?)
Not really the cost differential is not as much as you'd think, the USN estimated that a 35,000 ton 1920's treaty battleship would cost about 75% of a full on 80,000 ton Tillman Maximum BB, which can fit through the pre expansion Panama Canal. So can the modernized 30's era studies of up to 72,500 tons. Montana couldn't fit through the canal, true, but that was because they had planned an expansion before then, and she could easily fit through that

Navies would realize about the same time as OTL, or a bit later (with thicker deck armor and tougher TDS standard would need larger bombs and torpedoes), so late 30's early 40's, before then carriers while very useful, cannot beat battleships on their own. Long Range torpedoes without guidance are basically hoping that your target will be in the place you guess in 10-30 minutes, unless you shoot from with 6" gun range. With subs, can happen, but it took a long time for a sub that could catch even a slow battleship
 
USN estimated that a 35,000 ton 1920's treaty battleship would cost about 75% of a full on 80,000 ton Tillman Maximum BB
I thought the differential was bigger. Thx.
basically hoping that your target will be in the place you guess in 10-30 minutes, unless you shoot from with 6" gun range.
It's a trifle more than mere hope...but you're not wrong. I probably should not have said "long-range" (except to mean they don't need to be from something like 20mm range). A shot from outside about 5km (2-1/2nm) is too long to expect to hit a fast-moving target.
 
Top