Tanks in a quick Entente victory

The Vulture

Banned
Given the number of WWI threads lately, dealing with a CP victory or early Entente victory, I thought I'd ask what would happen to the tank ()and to a lesser extent, trench warfare) in an early Entente victory.

Supposing the Entente wins before the front becomes static and before it becomes necessary to develop tanks to break through fortifications. Tanks are not invented in 1916 because the war is already over. What is the effect (aside from upsetting MacCaulay) Will tanks as we know them be invented at all? If tanks are made for a colonial war in Africa or a defense against a resurgent Germany, will they have the same basic form and shape? Will the name even be the same?

What say you?
 
I'd assume the sheer number of casualties due to machine guns will facilitate experiments in some form of armored vehicles, though without combat experience who knows what form they'll take? There were experiments in armored cars before the war, IIRC. I'd guess without static trench warfare you might see an emphasis on fast, light all-terrain wheeled vehicles as "metal horses" rather than the big lumbering treaded monstrosities of OTL. Sort of wheeled tankettes.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Tanks are a completely offensive weapon, as such they will be thrown back in development maybe by a decade or so. Germany will still be very strong depending on the Victory. However, they likely won't have the strength to reinvade anyone for awhile and without the need for a decisive breakout weapon (as a quick war will not show the massive failure of trench war, remember the eary part of the war was quite mobile)

Russia will be the most set to develop this weapon. With vast stretches of land to cover, the need for a quick deployment, and mobile war Russia will need weapons like this to succeed. Plus who can argue with the Bicycle tank
 
I think that what you'd see is substantial investement by Britain and France in armoured cars and aircraft for colonial warfare, as they both substantially reduce the cost of counter-insurgency campaigns. The Germans won't have the same incentive to develop them, so the Entente are likely to end up ahead here. Tracks will come due to the necessity of operating over rough ground, but we're likely to see nearly all of the work go into light tanks.
 
Armored Cars would still have been built by then.
it's verry possible that they continue to work on them, ending up on something simular to the tank.
 
Given the number of WWI threads lately, dealing with a CP victory or early Entente victory, I thought I'd ask what would happen to the tank ()and to a lesser extent, trench warfare) in an early Entente victory.

Supposing the Entente wins before the front becomes static and before it becomes necessary to develop tanks to break through fortifications.

Basically you are saying the war ends in 1914. By the end of that year the front was already static and trench warfare was in full swing. Hard to say how that could happen minus ASB intervention, or major PODs before the war which might make the war itself, as it occurred in OTL, impossible to occur.

The Landships Committee, which developed the tank, was formed by First Lord of the Admiralty in February 1915, but originated with an idea by a Major Ernest Swinton, Royal Engineers, in September 1914...less than a month after the beginning of the war. So to kill the concept completely for the immediate future, you may have to have the war end before the end of August 1914. Which is even more ASB.

Tanks are not invented in 1916 because the war is already over. What is the effect (aside from upsetting MacCaulay) Will tanks as we know them be invented at all? If tanks are made for a colonial war in Africa or a defense against a resurgent Germany, will they have the same basic form and shape? Will the name even be the same?

What say you?

I think that, assuming the war ends before the Landships Committee can finalize a design for a tank...a more likely POD than it ending before anyone thought of it...then tank development is slowed down somewhat. The Landships Committee is probably broken up, and the first model of tank might not be deployed before the late 1920s...and possibly not by Britain.

But I think somebody would eventually develop one within the next decade or two at most...the idea had been floating around since the 1870s at least, and the technology would keep evolving, making it more of a workable idea as time went on.

The basic form of the first tanks might be quite different than the form f the first tanks in OTL. But it will eventually settle down to the basic form we have today, with a revolving turret housing the main armament, because that is simply the most logical and efficient form.

The name is likely to be different. There is no logical reason why they would be called tanks in such an ATL. Indeed, it would be surprising if they were. More likely it will be something like a "landship," "landcruiser," "battlewagon," etc.
 
I could see the development of armoured cars take the leading step (as development was progressing in a number of areas and important and long lasting designs), and it would likely not be long before some bright spark somewhere suggests "hey, what if we combined a tractor and this armoured car?"

However I doubt they would be of the initial british concept, probably more resembling designs that had originated from the armoured car concepts.
 
I imagine they'd be the logical development of the cavalry, with armored cars replacing horses and self propelled guns replacing the horse artillery.
 
AFV development

Assuming a late 1914/ early 1915 end to the war I agree with those who see a steady development of armored cars. What I would suggest is that this would branch into half tracks at some point to give better offroad capability. I might suggest that in that case APC's might develop before true "tanks" with the idea of moving some elite infantry through a zone otherwise dominated by indirect artillery fire.
 
Basically you are saying the war ends in 1914. By the end of that year the front was already static and trench warfare was in full swing. Hard to say how that could happen minus ASB intervention, or major PODs before the war which might make the war itself, as it occurred in OTL, impossible to occur.

The Landships Committee, which developed the tank, was formed by First Lord of the Admiralty in February 1915, but originated with an idea by a Major Ernest Swinton, Royal Engineers, in September 1914...less than a month after the beginning of the war. So to kill the concept completely for the immediate future, you may have to have the war end before the end of August 1914. Which is even more ASB.



I think that, assuming the war ends before the Landships Committee can finalize a design for a tank...a more likely POD than it ending before anyone thought of it...then tank development is slowed down somewhat. The Landships Committee is probably broken up, and the first model of tank might not be deployed before the late 1920s...and possibly not by Britain.

But I think somebody would eventually develop one within the next decade or two at most...the idea had been floating around since the 1870s at least, and the technology would keep evolving, making it more of a workable idea as time went on.

The basic form of the first tanks might be quite different than the form f the first tanks in OTL. But it will eventually settle down to the basic form we have today, with a revolving turret housing the main armament, because that is simply the most logical and efficient form.

The name is likely to be different. There is no logical reason why they would be called tanks in such an ATL. Indeed, it would be surprising if they were. More likely it will be something like a "landship," "landcruiser," "battlewagon," etc.
Makes sense. The different naming is an interesting point, too. In the Worldwar series, for some reason, the Lizards (aliens) refer to tanks as "landcruisers"... despite coming from a planet with very little open water and never having had substantial navies.

That never made sense to me... :eek:


Anyway. Yes, supposedly people had had the idea of something like a tank as early as you say, or even earlier - there just hadn't been the technology and/or motivation to make it practical!
 
Basically you are saying the war ends in 1914. By the end of that year the front was already static and trench warfare was in full swing. Hard to say how that could happen minus ASB intervention, or major PODs before the war which might make the war itself, as it occurred in OTL, impossible to occur. .

I disagree, you could easily have the war end in 1915 if the germans didn't capture the Antwerpen nitrates and their industrialisatin of the Haber process was slightly slower.
 

Hecatee

Donor
on the technological front I could see half-track gain more popularity and be this world's ww2 weapon of choyce due to increased mobility as shown by the great expeditions in central asia of the interbellum...
 
There is another way to get the ball rolling a little earlier. It might take some tinkering with however. In the wake of the horrific proportional losses taken in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 (siege warfare, trenches, machine guns, barbed wire) many of the military attaches who saw the fighting drew the correct conclusions but were then ignored.
Have a report on the implications of the war fall into the hands of someone with more imagination in Horse Guards or the Admiralty, who commissions a study - just on the off-chance that there might be something in it, don't you know?
 
Top