Tanks in ACW

[Derek Jackson]

What about imported elephants as a power source?

 

[Archangel Michael]

Plus, it wouldn't be too hard to speed up the invention of the internal combustion engine, which, if I remember correctly, was invented in 1885, only twenty years after the ACW's end. If we could get an efficient gas powered engine during the Crimean War, tanks by the ACW gets a bit more plausible.

Again, IIRC, the first internal-combustion engine ran in 1861.

 

[Tetsu]

Again, IIRC, the first internal-combustion engine ran in 1861.

Actually, upon further research, I came across an article that states the internal combustion engine first ran in 1807. It was impractical, however, because it lacked power and ran on a mix of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel.

In 1858, another ICE was built that ran on coal gas. In 1867, Nikolaus Otto created the four-stroke ICE. It was much more efficient that the 1858 engine, and Otto actually managed to market a few for industrial use.

 

[wkwillis]

Steam engines are less efficient but much lighter if you don't include a radiator. You can build a steam engine without a transmission because you can bleed in steam to get lots of torque at low speeds and then ramp up to a more efficient RPM.
The problem with tanks is that they would have been sitting ducks for the huge numbers of cannon that were typical of civil war battles. Tanks were designed to knock out machine gun nests. The civil war with lots of Spencer breechloaders would have necessitated tanks.
Say, the Republicans don't elect a president until 1872? The Colt factories are bigger and have more financial backing? People have spent longer thinking about a civil war? Even twelve years would have dramatically increased America's industrial base.
We were growing very rapidly back then. The French would just have been through the Franco-Prussian war and they would have had lots of surplus breechloaders. The British would not have been so provocative without the prospect of Napoleon III to back them. Especially with the Germans as a prospective threat.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Steam engines are less efficient but much lighter if you don't include a radiator. You can build a steam engine without a transmission because you can bleed in steam to get lots of torque at low speeds and then ramp up to a more efficient RPM.
The problem with tanks is that they would have been sitting ducks for the huge numbers of cannon that were typical of civil war battles. Tanks were designed to knock out machine gun nests. The civil war with lots of Spencer breechloaders would have necessitated tanks.
Say, the Republicans don't elect a president until 1872? The Colt factories are bigger and have more financial backing? People have spent longer thinking about a civil war? Even twelve years would have dramatically increased America's industrial base.
We were growing very rapidly back then. The French would just have been through the Franco-Prussian war and they would have had lots of surplus breechloaders. The British would not have been so provocative without the prospect of Napoleon III to back them. Especially with the Germans as a prospective threat.

It is highly likely that without the American Civil War Napoleon III would have been unable, or unwilling, to commit to Mexico much of his army. Thus, ironically when 1866 rolls around, those French politicians pressing for French involvement in support of Austria would not be faced by the fact that many of the best French units and commanders were overseas. If France therefore does enter on Austria's side, Prussia could be annihilated. Conversely, Bismarck not being a complete idiot may not have pressed for war with Austria in 1866, and thus the Austro-Prussian War may have been delayed itself.

Grey Wolf