Lets discuss the effects of steam driven tanks if they're invented in the late 1800's

[Shtudmuffin]

1) I'm not sure it would take "a lot" to destroy it. Artillery is pretty potent.

2) "a back compartment". Which means what? How are you placing it relative to the guns and so forth?

3) A "tender" would be terribly vulnerable, not to mention something else to be dragged around - meanwhile putting it in "another compartment" raises the question in #2.

You don't have a lot of space to work with here.

1) Yes, but you'll have to draw a good amount of enemy fire away from what's important-the infantry-in order to damage/destroy the thing. If you've got artillery focusing on fending off these behemoths, then what's shooting at the attacking infantry and cavalry? Maybe the enemy infantry or cavalry, but when that's not enough, and you have more than one armored landcruiser bearing down on the enemy, they will probably be forced to ignore one target to take out the other, buying you the opportunity to take them out. Also, shock factor might be a big thing with these armored vehicles.

2) Probably behind the guns and crew area; the coal would perhaps go in bunkers attached to the side (or even stored in a bin between the screws), and the water would be stored in a similar manner, I would imagine.

 

[Elfwine]

1) Yes, but you'll have to draw a good amount away from what's important-the infantry. If you've got artillery focusing on fending off these behemoths, then what's shooting at the attacking infantry and cavalry?

Not really "a good amount". That's the problem.

2) Probably behind the guns and crew area; the coal would perhaps go in bunkers attached to the side (or even stored in a bin between the screws), and the water would be stored in a similar manner, I would imagine.

This sounds like something that would run short of coal and water quickly.


Note: I'm asking these questions because I'm a skeptic on how this would work, so my response to "So how would you make it work?" is "Handwavium - all that heat will heat up the water without needing any coal.".

 

[Shtudmuffin]

Not really "a good amount". That's the problem.



This sounds like something that would run short of coal and water quickly.


Note: I'm asking these questions because I'm a skeptic on how this would work, so my response to "So how would you make it work?" is "Handwavium - all that heat will heat up the water without needing any coal.".

What if oil was used as a fuel instead of coal?

 

[Elfwine]

What if oil was used as a fuel instead of coal?

Still leaves water.

I just don't think there's room within the tank to have sufficient stores of fuel to operate for very long - that's not a problem for tank locomotives because they can stop and refuel every so often, but for armored war vehicles that's disastrous.

Also, I suspect the interior of any steam tank is going to heat up to unbearable levels quickly.

 

[SPJ]

What if there was a tank shaped like the tank design at the left in the top picture, but had a screw drive (perhaps driven by pistons, like a steam locomotive)? IOTL, screw-driven land vehicles were invented as early as 1868 for agricultural work; I don't think armor, heavy as it is, would adversely affect a piston-engine's rotary motion if said rotary motion is used to turn screws as opposed to smaller and thinner wheels; this would be because the weight would be spread out among a whole screw instead of a single wheel or a set of wheels, and the area of contact with the ground would be much larger, lessening the pressure of the armor's weight on the moving mechanisms. But hey, what do I know?

I'm not sure if you knew by checking the link but that machine in the picture is supposed to have a screw drive. Here is what is on the site.

The "Muskrat" is a concept utilizing the technology availabe during the American Civil War which features the opposed screw drive. With extensive sabotage and damage to the rail infrastructure during the war, this steam powered vehicle would have allowed travel through swamps and fields of 19th century America. Designed as an artillery hauler, this vehicle would have perfomed similarly to an army tank in the field. On paved roads or firm surfaces however, it would have the tendancy to sidewind.

 

[Elfwine]

Even if it's horribly impractical, that is an awesome looking machine.

 

[SPJ]

Not really "a good amount". That's the problem.



This sounds like something that would run short of coal and water quickly.


Note: I'm asking these questions because I'm a skeptic on how this would work, so my response to "So how would you make it work?" is "Handwavium - all that heat will heat up the water without needing any coal.".

It's good to be a skeptic. I started this thread in the hope that some people with better engineering educations than mine(I'm only an introductory student) might understand what needs to be done to design a plausible steam powered armored vehicle similar a modern tank. I personally like hard-science-fiction (that is sci-fi which is scientifically plausible) and I would like to write a hard steam punk TL so I started this thread to get some help.

Now I've done some more research on tracked vehicles and I actually found some log haulers built during the first 10 years after 1900. The first is the Lombard Log Hauler which was the first successful tracked log hauler of its kind. The average unit weighed nearly 20 tons (14 of which where due to the track system alone) according to most sources and could haul a load of 125 tons. It seems to have a rather simple design in regards to its power unit which is a Horizantalsteam bowler much like that used for locomotives. It also had a saddle tank like some locomotives which was used to carry water and curved over the bowler. It also often hauled a trailer carrying more coal to fuel it. According to most sources It could travel between 3 to 4 mph.

Also there was another log hauler based off the Lombard known as the Phoenix log hauler which according to my sources was lighter at about 17 tons and faster but by how much I don't know. Now both of these where designed to be driven by a set of tracks in the back and supported in the front by a pair of skis which allowed them to operate over ice and snow which was their intended environment. But I've found some videos and pictures in which they have been modified with wheel on the front so that they can operate over dirt and such.

So after learning about these vehicles I've decided that it would probably be too hard to design a steam powered vehicle with tread running along its length since the weight may be too much. But after seeing the log hauler modified with wheels its inspired me to maybe design a steam powered half-track vehicle.

 

[Elfwine]

It's good to be a skeptic. I started this thread in the hope that some people with better engineering educations than mine(I'm only an introductory student) might understand what needs to be done to design a plausible steam powered armored vehicle similar a modern tank. I personally like hard-science-fiction (that is sci-fi which is scientifically plausible) and I would like to write a hard steam punk TL so I started this thread to get some help.

"Hard SF" and "steampunk" don't mix very well. Steam is just too inefficient a power source - and I say this as a romantic and a steampunk fan.

Now I've done some more research on tracked vehicles and I actually found some log haulers built during the first 10 years after 1900. The first is the Lombard Log Hauler which was the first successful tracked log hauler of its kind. The average unit weighed nearly 20 tons (14 of which where due to the track system alone) according to most sources and could haul a load of 125 tons. It seems to have a rather simple design in regards to its power unit which is a Horizantalsteam bowler much like that used for locomotives. It also had a saddle tank like some locomotives which was used to carry water and curved over the bowler. It also often hauled a trailer carrying more coal to fuel it. According to most sources It could travel between 3 to 4 mph.
(snip.)
Also there was another log hauler based off the Lombard known as the Phoenix log hauler which according to my sources was lighter at about 17 tons and faster but by how much I don't know. Now both of these where designed to be driven by a set of tracks in the back and supported in the front by a pair of skis which allowed them to operate over ice and snow which was their intended environment. But I've found some videos and pictures in which they have been modified with wheel on the front so that they can operate over dirt and such.
(snip.)

So after learning about these vehicles I've decided that it would probably be too hard to design a steam powered vehicle with tread running along its length since the weight may be too much. But after seeing the log hauler modified with wheels its inspired me to maybe design a steam powered half-track vehicle.

With or without armor and weapons? That's going to be a major burden.

 

[Superaquaspiderbatman]

First question.

Where do you put the boiler?

Second question: What about the fuel supply?

Third question: And the water?

Fourth question: And how do you keep the crew from burning up...literally

 

[SPJ]

"Hard SF" and "steampunk" don't mix very well. Steam is just too inefficient a power source - and I say this as a romantic and a steampunk fan.

With or without armor and weapons? That's going to be a major burden.

*Sigh* I know. I've been wondering if a machine like the Lombard can haul 125 tons if it can handle having the weight of armour as well as weapons on top of it. I need to do some more research to finda way to make this plausible. If not I'll go for a deisel powered machine with a steampunk aesthetic.

 

[Flubber]

I've been wondering if a machine link the Lombard can haul 125 tons if it can handle having the weight of armour as well as weapons on top of it.

There is a great difference between towing something and carrying something.

 

[KnightofTempest]

btw the British Army tried to use Tanks as mobile pillboxes OTL in order to draw fire away from the infantry and be able to go over trenches and barbed wired. It didn't work, mainly because early tanks couldn't withstand anywhere near the amount of punishment required to draw enemy artillery away from the infantry, were stupidly slow, and prone to breakdowns. It wasn't until the interwar period when these design problems were fixed and armored tactics developed that actually made tanks a credible threat on the battlefield.

So to summarize they tried using tanks the way you are proposing to use them in OTL. . .the effects were negligable on the battlefield.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

Still leaves water.

I just don't think there's room within the tank to have sufficient stores of fuel to operate for very long - that's not a problem for tank locomotives because they can stop and refuel every so often, but for armored war vehicles that's disastrous.

Also, I suspect the interior of any steam tank is going to heat up to unbearable levels quickly.

I think such machines would have enough fuel to last through a battle or two, and that's all they would need in a lot of situations. To go long distances they would perhaps require similarly propelled auxiliary units, or have to operate close to railway infrastructure, but I would imagine refueling them wouldn't be impossible. Plus, it's hard to imagine them going long distances on their own anyway-perhaps we'd see them carried by rail (of course, if they are too heavy for rail transport, they'll probably just be relegated to a defensive role only).

And that's what happened in the first tanks-they fixed it by seperating the engine compartment from the crew area. Seems simple enough.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

I'm not sure if you knew by checking the link but that machine in the picture is supposed to have a screw drive. Here is what is on the site.

Yeah, I knew. In fact, that's pretty much what gave me the idea-use that machine's screw drive as the big tank in the first picture's propulsion.

 

[Elfwine]

I think such machines would have enough fuel to last through a battle or two, and that's all they would need in a lot of situations. To go long distances they would perhaps require similarly propelled auxiliary units, or have to operate close to railway infrastructure, but I would imagine refueling them wouldn't be impossible. Plus, it's hard to imagine them going long distances on their own anyway-perhaps we'd see them carried by rail (of course, if they are too heavy for rail transport, they'll probably just be relegated to a defensive role only).

Not impossible, just impractical. Having to cart them around by rail greatly limits their usefulness.

And that's what happened in the first tanks-they fixed it by seperating the engine compartment from the crew area. Seems simple enough.

Except that with a steam engine, you have to feed the fiery furnace and keep it tended - which, lest we forget, means at least one additional crewman.

So you can't really keep the engine separate from the crew - and it's going to be a larger engine as well because of how steam engines work (and are limited). So a good portion of the interior is going to be exposed to this heat.

 

[Shtudmuffin]

Not impossible, just impractical. Having to cart them around by rail greatly limits their usefulness.

True. But perhaps auxiliary, unarmed fuel-carriers with a similar method of propulsion would be able to extend the range.

Except that with a steam engine, you have to feed the fiery furnace and keep it tended - which, lest we forget, means at least one additional crewman.

So you can't really keep the engine separate from the crew - and it's going to be a larger engine as well because of how steam engines work (and are limited). So a good portion of the interior is going to be exposed to this heat.

Ah, right, I forgot about the fireman. Maybe a coal auger would suffice?

 

[Elfwine]

True. But perhaps auxiliary, unarmed fuel-carriers with a similar method of propulsion would be able to extend the range.

I'm just imagining them being attacked and destroyed now. They'd be quite vulnerable if unarmored, and armoring them means more weight to worry about moving.

Plus any other issues.

Ah, right, I forgot about the fireman. Maybe a coal auger would suffice?

What would that look like?

 

[amphibulous]

1) Yes, but you'll have to draw a good amount of enemy fire away from what's important-the infantry-in order to damage/destroy the thing. If you've got artillery focusing on fending off these behemoths, then what's shooting at the attacking infantry and cavalry?

The artillery as soon as it has finished destroying the steam tanks - which will take hardly any time. Steam tanks have much lower power to weight than ICE tanks so they'll have thinner armour and they will be slower and have to avoid rougher ground. You seem to imagine them as steam powered Tigers, but the armour probably won't get the level needed to stop a rifle bullet.

Using expensive tanks to soak up a minute or twos fire from relative cheap guns just isn't smart - you'll throw trade the most expensive objects on the battlefield for a few shells.

 

[amphibulous]

I think such machines would have enough fuel to last through a battle or two, and that's all they would need in a lot of situations.

But WHY do you think that? How big are the tanks and how much room do they have for fuel? What hp will they need? Now get a reference from real hardware and see how fuel will be burned in an hour.

 

[amphibulous]

Fourth question: And how do you keep the crew from burning up...literally

That's a really good question. One of the big problems for Arab armies fighting the Israelis was that they had to keep the ammunition compartment doors of tanks open in the desert - otherwise crews would collapse from heat prostration.