Tanks ready pre ww1

I do not remember the names, but the Germans and Austrians both rejected a scientist who had the idea for a tank. The French also had one going, but beauracratic nonsense delayed development from 1908 to 1916. What if both sides had not been slow to develop these machines and instead had working tanks at the opening of hostilities? How would history change? Also, if anyone has the names of the people involved in the tanks, please let me know, I can't remember.
 

jahenders

Banned
It would depend on how advanced they were initially and then how well they advanced. Some would argue that many of the WWI tanks were hardly ready for warfare, but they sufficed to make some impact.

If the tanks were notionally ready but even more problematic, they might have been shuffled aside as not ready.

If around 1910, some countries had tanks like those of WW1, then it's a safe bet they'd have advanced somewhat by 1914. If the Germans had some numbers and used them well, they might have contributed to breaking the hasty French lines. It is, however, important to recall that the WWI tanks were definitely not fast, mobile assets.

If, instead, the French or Russians had far more power (and skill) in tanks, it could have severely impacted the Germans and changed the course of the war.

All I come across (other than Da Vinci) is a French captain Levavasseur who, in 1903, proposed a self-propelled cannon moved by tracks and fully armoured for protection.

I do not remember the names, but the Germans and Austrians both rejected a scientist who had the idea for a tank. The French also had one going, but beauracratic nonsense delayed development from 1908 to 1916. What if both sides had not been slow to develop these machines and instead had working tanks at the opening of hostilities? How would history change? Also, if anyone has the names of the people involved in the tanks, please let me know, I can't remember.
 
Same happened in Austria-Hungary, in 1911
An Austrian army officer, k.u.k Genie-Oberleutenant Günther Burstyn (born on 6/7 1879 in Bad Aussee, Steiermark, and dead 15/4 1945 in Korneuburg, Niederösterreich) inspired by the sight of the American Holt agricultural tractor with crawler tracks, designed a small tracked vehicle, which he called a Motorgeschütz (motor-gun), built it in model form, and sent this and the design to the Austrian War Office in October 1911. Had it been built the vehicle would have been 3.5m long, 1.9m wide and 1.9m high. Cross-country speed would have been about 8 km/h, road speed 29 km/h. It would be propelled by a 60HP Truck Engine. The four subsidiary wheels, two at each end on arms, could be lowered as required, the rear pair being driven as an aid to traction and the front pair, which could be pivoted, being intended for steering. It was supposed to have an armament of a small calibre fast fire gun (30-40mm calibre). Its tactical use would be close support of Infantry Attacks, for suppression of enemy MG's, and also frontal attacks against enemy artillery positions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080615221033/http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm

hqdefault.jpg
 
I've my doubts that tanks would be of much use pre-war, unless a lot more money was poured into engines.
 
It would depend on how advanced they were initially and then how well they advanced. Some would argue that many of the WWI tanks were hardly ready for warfare, but they sufficed to make some impact.

If the tanks were notionally ready but even more problematic, they might have been shuffled aside as not ready.

If around 1910, some countries had tanks like those of WW1, then it's a safe bet they'd have advanced somewhat by 1914. If the Germans had some numbers and used them well, they might have contributed to breaking the hasty French lines. It is, however, important to recall that the WWI tanks were definitely not fast, mobile assets.

If, instead, the French or Russians had far more power (and skill) in tanks, it could have severely impacted the Germans and changed the course of the war.

All I come across (other than Da Vinci) is a French captain Levavasseur who, in 1903, proposed a self-propelled cannon moved by tracks and fully armoured for protection.

I don't think they'd be useful for the Germans in their sweeping battles of maneuver. Trying to bring tanks on an advance for many hundreds of kilometers in a fast moving and mobile battlefield, in 1914, is about the worst possible thing that can be done for them. Even decades later that is going to result in break downs, in 1914 with poorer mechanical capability and support infrastructure it is going to be terrible. Not to mention you have an entire new logistics arm to support.

Tanks would be best for those nations conducting short distance offensives where they know where their enemies are. So I'd probably say that the best nations for tanks are France (which has a much more developed automobile industry than Germany so automatically they're better off industrial wise for their production, one of the rare cases with major French industrial advantages) for their starting offensive into Alsace-Lorraine, and maybe Austria in their initial attacks into Serbia, since that is a relatively small front. For Russia they have too large of distances for 1914 tanks to work effectively, Ottomans the same and too small industrial capacity, Italy's front had lots of mountains which makes usage there hard, Germans have to go too far of a distance and too quickly, don't know about the British but the British army was tiny so it wouldn't be a major difference. Once the war settles down on the western front it is useful for all combatants engaged there ofc.

As far as pre-war designs Levavasseur's project was pretty cool, a 75mm field gun, and it looks less unwieldily than the St. Chamond.
 
The tank (an armoured vehicle on tracks) was not really in development till mid-way through the war, and only realy started being looked at due to the torn up nature of the terrain and trench warfare.

However, the armoured car did already have some initial useful designs even in 1914. In the open field conditions of the time, if these had been available in useful numbers - say a few hundred - rather than the dozen or so some major powers had, then that may have changed the game somewhat.

So - the pod is a few hundred early armoured cars, not a few dozen, and available at war start.

Perhaps army pundits make 'armoured cavalry" a topic for discussion in the press, as battleship pundits had done for the all-big gun ship in the early 20th century? (e.g. Cuniberti). Someone posits that horses will get punctured easily by machine guns, and advocates the armoured car at a significantly early point (series of letters to the Times in 1910?) that the great powers have a substantial fleet of them, and early teething issues are resolved by then as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester_4x2_Armoured_Car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Armoured_Car
so instead of 36 of these going to France in 1914, the UK sends 360 in several armoured cavalry brigades. Germany, Austria and France have similar units available at war start, too. All sides will soon find out that these things cannot kill each other, and start lugging some sort of A/T weaponry and the AFV arms race is on...

Trench conditions probably would have still ensued, but at a different front line position?. And the trenches, now being a block to the proven useful armoured car may then spur earlier interest in track-laying contraptions to provide a breakthrough for the armoured cavalry to exploit.
 
If tanks were ready before the war at least someone would have thought about anti-tank measures. Obstacles are easy enough and smallish high velocity guns are a dime a dozen on naval vessels of the era.
 
I don't think they'd be useful for the Germans in their sweeping battles of maneuver. Trying to bring tanks on an advance for many hundreds of kilometers in a fast moving and mobile battlefield, in 1914, is about the worst possible thing that can be done for them. Even decades later that is going to result in break downs, in 1914 with poorer mechanical capability and support infrastructure it is going to be terrible. Not to mention you have an entire new logistics arm to support.

Tanks would be best for those nations conducting short distance offensives where they know where their enemies are. So I'd probably say that the best nations for tanks are France (which has a much more developed automobile industry than Germany so automatically they're better off industrial wise for their production, one of the rare cases with major French industrial advantages) for their starting offensive into Alsace-Lorraine, and maybe Austria in their initial attacks into Serbia, since that is a relatively small front. For Russia they have too large of distances for 1914 tanks to work effectively, Ottomans the same and too small industrial capacity, Italy's front had lots of mountains which makes usage there hard, Germans have to go too far of a distance and too quickly, don't know about the British but the British army was tiny so it wouldn't be a major difference. Once the war settles down on the western front it is useful for all combatants engaged there ofc.

As far as pre-war designs Levavasseur's project was pretty cool, a 75mm field gun, and it looks less unwieldily than the St. Chamond.

Agreed they were way too slow and even if there was a serendipity that developed them (which would have been for no conceivable reason before people realized trench war would be a thing), then the back and forth would mean the western front is decided earlier, but the same way, and still slowly. However, there would be changes.

With Germany not taking down Russia until 1917, the Western allies would puncture the Western line in 1916 latest since German digging in would be less effective.

The biggest implication of this is that the Russian Empire would still be around, weakened by their terrible war performance. Austria will probably break into Cisleithania and Transleithania (Austria and Hungary) and italy would get some land, but without Wilson's intervention and the collapse of the country internally it wouldn't be balkanization into 8 countries. This is pre-big British ops in the Middle East, and tanks in Gallipoli seems rare, so the Turks would end up the "best" of the Central Powers relatively and lose Eastern lands to Russia, plus shreds of the Middle East. Proving themselves at Gallipoli, and Kut, if the war lasts that long, will gain them some respect, and Enver might be a hero.

As for Germany, winning in the East and losing in the West, they'd lose Alsace Lorraine and pay reparations, but ultimately a loose form of the Monarchy might survive. Without the Polish corridor, I doubt the nazis would be as popular, and I don't think hyperinflation would be as bad as RL if the war didn't last until 1918.
 
Tanks to AT weapons

If there were tanks, then I would expect the heavy machine gun would come along sooner--the M2 .50 cal machine gun was an anti-tank weapon at first. Also the anti-tank rifle likely would be around sooner--makes a nasty sniper weapon also.

If they were intended specifically for assaulting heavily fortified positions, then some trench crossing ability would be part of the design, but I can't see early tanks being able to break the trench warfare deadlock all that easily.

Of course, if one nation had them, and others thought they were a waste of effort, that could be another story all together...
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
However, the armoured car did already have some initial useful designs even in 1914. In the open field conditions of the time, if these had been available in useful numbers - say a few hundred - rather than the dozen or so some major powers had, then that may have changed the game somewhat.

What about a nation that, for some reason, does not have very much or very good cavalry (or expects to fight a nation with very much very good cavalry) developing an armored car with a machine gun or two as an anti-cavalry weapon?
 
However, the armoured car did already have some initial useful designs even in 1914. In the open field conditions of the time, if these had been available in useful numbers - say a few hundred - rather than the dozen or so some major powers had, then that may have changed the game somewhat.

...

Perhaps army pundits make 'armoured cavalry" a topic for discussion in the press, as battleship pundits had done for the all-big gun ship in the early 20th century?
You might actually have better luck with the Royal Navy pressing ahead and creating them with the Army catching up. IIRC the first British armoured cars were created by Royal Naval Air Service members in France using regular cars armoured with boiler plates to their own designs before moving on to more professional models, mainly to help protect RNAS airfields and carry out scouting duties. If the Army feels that the Navy is impinging on their territory or showing them up then it could be a large stimulus.

Churchill seems to have been interested in new technology such as motor cars, he took flying lessons and was of course heavily involved in the development of tanks. There was an incident in the Summer of 1911, during the Agadir Crisis, that he was attending a party at Downing Street whilst Home Secretary and by chance happened to learn that the Navy's cordite reserves were guarded by the Home Office in the form of a couple of uniformed officers armed with truncheons. Being somewhat alarmed to find out that anyone turning up in a couple of cars and armed with firearms could effectively do what they like he telephoned the Admiralty but was turned away by the official he spoke to who refused to send any Marines to reinforce the guard. Phoning the War Office two companies of infantry were quickly dispatched via car to secure them. A couple of years before the Automobile Association, mostly as a publicity stunt, had transported a composite battalion of Guards and their paraphernalia from London to Brighton and back without any hitches as a demonstration. This and other developments helped get the government to introduce a subsidy scheme for the private purchase of certain types of motor lorries that would be taken into government service in times of war as happened during the Great War.

So supposing when he becomes First Lord of the Admiralty a couple of months after the cordite incident aside from giving the Admiral who rebuffed him a severe dressing-down he becomes taken with the idea of making sure that the Marines have their own stock of lorries to move them about either at home or deployed abroad? This gets rolled out and a year or two later in say 1912 or 1913 someone points out that they're awfully undefended against enemy rifle fire and suggest either armouring them or creating specially armoured cars to escort them. Armouring the lorries turns out to weigh them down too much so they turn to the latter option, this would also appeal to the adventurous, young aristocratic types that were already interested with motor cars and became involved with early armoured cars in our timeline. When the various Royal Navy units depoly to the continent they're escorted by armoured cars. If the Army have been stung into action then they could have some armoured car regiments as well.
 
Agreed they were way too slow and even if there was a serendipity that developed them (which would have been for no conceivable reason before people realized trench war would be a thing), then the back and forth would mean the western front is decided earlier, but the same way, and still slowly. However, there would be changes.

With Germany not taking down Russia until 1917, the Western allies would puncture the Western line in 1916 latest since German digging in would be less effective.

The biggest implication of this is that the Russian Empire would still be around, weakened by their terrible war performance. Austria will probably break into Cisleithania and Transleithania (Austria and Hungary) and italy would get some land, but without Wilson's intervention and the collapse of the country internally it wouldn't be balkanization into 8 countries. This is pre-big British ops in the Middle East, and tanks in Gallipoli seems rare, so the Turks would end up the "best" of the Central Powers relatively and lose Eastern lands to Russia, plus shreds of the Middle East. Proving themselves at Gallipoli, and Kut, if the war lasts that long, will gain them some respect, and Enver might be a hero.

As for Germany, winning in the East and losing in the West, they'd lose Alsace Lorraine and pay reparations, but ultimately a loose form of the Monarchy might survive. Without the Polish corridor, I doubt the nazis would be as popular, and I don't think hyperinflation would be as bad as RL if the war didn't last until 1918.
The French wanted a Rhine Frontier.;)
 
Top