What was the absolute earliest that tanks could have emerged?
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
Wasn't that before the Assyrian civilization existed itself? I think he's confusing 3,000 years ago (at which point there was a Bronze Age Assyrian civilization of course) with 3000 BCE. That's my guess at least.
Anyway, do siege towers count? Also, the Romans had built battering rams that provided protection from missile fire for the crew operating it:
Yes, but the Assyrian civilization, at its earliest, started around 2,400 BCE. The militaristic Assyria we know of, and that was most likely being referred to, wasn't around until the 14th-11th centuries BCE during the Bronze Age.
Slightly OT, but I found a site documenting armoured trains of American Civil War.
http://www.firstmdus.net/Rail cars.htm
If they'd had any practicable way to go off-rail in ~1865, they'd have done so. Other than that inspired Austro-Hungarian design described above which failed to find a sponsor, it took the Fowler armoured road-trains in ~1899 to show what could be done...
Unfortunately, soggy Flanders and trench crossing required a lot more power plus reliable tracks, which took a while to mature...
http://www.firstmdus.net/Rail cars.htm
If they'd had any practicable way to go off-rail in ~1865, they'd have done so. Other than that inspired Austro-Hungarian design described above which failed to find a sponsor, it took the Fowler armoured road-trains in ~1899 to show what could be done...
Unfortunately, soggy Flanders and trench crossing required a lot more power plus reliable tracks, which took a while to mature...
Yes, but typically you see that with writing accompanying it describing what it is. Otherwise it can be anything, to see a huge tank like structure in 3000 BC is most likely some sort of deity being represented. Further for you to say such a thing requires you to provide information showing such things, if not then don't try me.
Maybe. I always thought Assyria was a bit earlier than that.
Anyway, the time they were fighting the Anatolians and Babylon
- BNC
It is not really a tank, but there was a French self-propelled steam vehicle designed by Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot from 1770 for towing guns, which was tested by the French Army but found to be impractical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas-Joseph_Cugnot#The_first_self-propelled_vehicle
Maybe if he got the idea of shifting the boiler to the back with a different powertrain (and hopefully making a better boiler, it says that the boiler was bad even by the standards of the time, so maybe a somewhat better one could be found), and putting some metal plate around the driver, it could produce a vehicle to somewhat qualify as a tank in the 1770s. Add on... I guess the closest to a machine gun from the era is a Puckle gun, and its a fun diversion, even if too slow and too cumbersome to be of much use. And of course, there are no tracks, although there were some English experiments with those at the time, so it really qualifies more as an armored car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas-Joseph_Cugnot#The_first_self-propelled_vehicle
Maybe if he got the idea of shifting the boiler to the back with a different powertrain (and hopefully making a better boiler, it says that the boiler was bad even by the standards of the time, so maybe a somewhat better one could be found), and putting some metal plate around the driver, it could produce a vehicle to somewhat qualify as a tank in the 1770s. Add on... I guess the closest to a machine gun from the era is a Puckle gun, and its a fun diversion, even if too slow and too cumbersome to be of much use. And of course, there are no tracks, although there were some English experiments with those at the time, so it really qualifies more as an armored car.
If your "tank" is designed for an assault, then you can possibly eliminate the rear armor (allowing heat out) and, in an era when plunging fire is almost impossible to aim at a moving target, very thin roof armor is also OK. Even the sides can be reduced--a direct assault tank will be moving forwards. Now you have cut enough corners to save enough weight to build the thing a bit earlier than might otherwise be possible.
I don't think that either the steam-, horse- or man-powered tank would be viable. Horses or men would be completely unable to lug any armour + cannons over rough terrain, and steam is very impractical due to the weight of fuel and the water required to produce the steam in the first place.
To make it mobile you just need to bring down the “armor” aspect to just wood, and likely the “cannon” aspect to just hand weapons (guns, crossbows or bows), in which case congratulations, you just rediscovered the battering ram, or the war wagon.
To make it mobile you just need to bring down the “armor” aspect to just wood, and likely the “cannon” aspect to just hand weapons (guns, crossbows or bows), in which case congratulations, you just rediscovered the battering ram, or the war wagon.
With road engines (think steamrollers with cleated wheels instead of pavement-smoothing wheels) and steam tractors relatively commonplace in the 1890s, that seems reasonable on a technical basis, especially given advances in metallurgy. Probably wouldn't be much more than an armored infantry platform, though, or it would be so massive and long as to be impractical. Can't see the US using anything like that in the Spanish-American war given the need for transport to Cuba. Thus the problem becomes a need for one and its practicality: a steam-powered *tank* had a small window as opposed to the much greater window available for an internal combustion-driven one. Still, the mental image of a camelback-style locomotive outfitted with cleated drive wheels and a Merrimack-like superstructure for maybe a dozen troops is intriguing.
Snag is power/ weight for crossing a battlefield didn't quite develop pre-1900 OTL. Traction engines were often very tall, driven by combination of 7 ft diameter drive-wheels for traction plus the grim requirement to squeeze their bulky, steam-powered machinery down winding country lanes and over narrow bridges. Oh, and wade fords when those bridges didn't suit...
IIRC, farms didn't plough with such engines directly, but used them, often in pairs, as mobile winches to haul wheeled machinery to and fro the length of the field. Think ski-tow. Cross-country driving was NOT on the menu.
Trains' more powerful locos had the freedom to get longer and longer, mildly articulated via bogies, tender, tank car and such. And 'double head' work at a pinch...
IIRC, traction engine FWD *was* tried, but the complexity thwarted inventors.
Pedrails & kin, those 'snow-shoe' things on WW1's big guns, couldn't beat track-layers.
Following link gives some idea of the evolution of traction engines and track-layers at that crucial era.
( Rest of Self's sprawling site is wondrous, wondrous fun to browse; set aside many hours, return often... ;-) )
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/traction/traction.htm
There's a lovely pic of a track-laying artillery tractor from 1905. That could *perhaps* have been built a decade or so sooner, considered a sub-scale prototype and grown into a squat war-toad like the archetypal WW1 TANK. Perhaps with side-by-side twin engines to simplify construction and steering, plus a disposable limber (=tender) to fuel & water it up to the front trench line ??
A serious snag, I suppose, was that the lessons of the near-Napoleonic Crimean War, followed by ghastly ACW, with its hasty trench lines and ravaged charges' appalling death-toll were NOT learned by European powers. IMHO, too many still thought of splendid cavalry charges out-flanking musket-armed infantry units, then destroying them with rapidly deployed horse-drawn field-guns like that apex design still seen at Royal displays & salutes...
UK's experiences in the dry-lands of the Boer Wars were poor preparation for stalemate in soggy Flanders' Fields. At least the 'poor bloody infantry' weren't 'RedCoats' any more, and so many of the BEF were such superb shots that their opponents were, um, disconcerted...
IIRC, farms didn't plough with such engines directly, but used them, often in pairs, as mobile winches to haul wheeled machinery to and fro the length of the field. Think ski-tow. Cross-country driving was NOT on the menu.
Trains' more powerful locos had the freedom to get longer and longer, mildly articulated via bogies, tender, tank car and such. And 'double head' work at a pinch...
IIRC, traction engine FWD *was* tried, but the complexity thwarted inventors.
Pedrails & kin, those 'snow-shoe' things on WW1's big guns, couldn't beat track-layers.
Following link gives some idea of the evolution of traction engines and track-layers at that crucial era.
( Rest of Self's sprawling site is wondrous, wondrous fun to browse; set aside many hours, return often... ;-) )
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/traction/traction.htm
There's a lovely pic of a track-laying artillery tractor from 1905. That could *perhaps* have been built a decade or so sooner, considered a sub-scale prototype and grown into a squat war-toad like the archetypal WW1 TANK. Perhaps with side-by-side twin engines to simplify construction and steering, plus a disposable limber (=tender) to fuel & water it up to the front trench line ??
A serious snag, I suppose, was that the lessons of the near-Napoleonic Crimean War, followed by ghastly ACW, with its hasty trench lines and ravaged charges' appalling death-toll were NOT learned by European powers. IMHO, too many still thought of splendid cavalry charges out-flanking musket-armed infantry units, then destroying them with rapidly deployed horse-drawn field-guns like that apex design still seen at Royal displays & salutes...
UK's experiences in the dry-lands of the Boer Wars were poor preparation for stalemate in soggy Flanders' Fields. At least the 'poor bloody infantry' weren't 'RedCoats' any more, and so many of the BEF were such superb shots that their opponents were, um, disconcerted...
Hmm. I may have given up on ACW just a bit too soon...
Came across an *interesting* site. There's a lot of fun stuff, including really, really big road and rail vehicles designed to shift mega-loads, including railway guns and, uh, atomic cannon. Tucked away on one of the many pages, I found this...
http://sbiii.com/ordnanc2.html#Winans
Quote:
"Ross Winans, famed early RR locomotive designer and builder (especially on the B&O) also not only built a steam railcar in 1861, he also built a steam machine gun! From my Steam Car page:
Looking up something unrelated in my 1945 "Tanks and Armored Vehicles, by Lt. Col. Robert J. Icks, Duell Sloane and Pearce, New York, I ran across a reference I'd completely forgotten. In 1861, Charles S. Dickinson invented and Ross Winans (the famed locomotive builder) built a "Steam Battery" or "Winans Steam Gun", a semi-armored, four-wheeled, steam-propelled wagon mounting a steam cannon. The latter came in many sizes and was practical but the wagon, built in Baltimore, and sent to Harper's Ferry for Confederate use, was captured by the Feds, tested, and deemed impractical (so what else is new?)."
Now this does NOT say it was a road wagon, though it links to 'steam car' page, where several inventors' work is described, so may provide a loophole.
But, yet again, the problem is power/weight. One of the steam-cars described from that era used to trundle around quite well for family outings, but could only go for an hour without refuelling. A wagon had to be sent on ahead with barrels of anthracite and water...
Came across an *interesting* site. There's a lot of fun stuff, including really, really big road and rail vehicles designed to shift mega-loads, including railway guns and, uh, atomic cannon. Tucked away on one of the many pages, I found this...
http://sbiii.com/ordnanc2.html#Winans
Quote:
"Ross Winans, famed early RR locomotive designer and builder (especially on the B&O) also not only built a steam railcar in 1861, he also built a steam machine gun! From my Steam Car page:
Looking up something unrelated in my 1945 "Tanks and Armored Vehicles, by Lt. Col. Robert J. Icks, Duell Sloane and Pearce, New York, I ran across a reference I'd completely forgotten. In 1861, Charles S. Dickinson invented and Ross Winans (the famed locomotive builder) built a "Steam Battery" or "Winans Steam Gun", a semi-armored, four-wheeled, steam-propelled wagon mounting a steam cannon. The latter came in many sizes and was practical but the wagon, built in Baltimore, and sent to Harper's Ferry for Confederate use, was captured by the Feds, tested, and deemed impractical (so what else is new?)."
Now this does NOT say it was a road wagon, though it links to 'steam car' page, where several inventors' work is described, so may provide a loophole.
But, yet again, the problem is power/weight. One of the steam-cars described from that era used to trundle around quite well for family outings, but could only go for an hour without refuelling. A wagon had to be sent on ahead with barrels of anthracite and water...
trurle
Banned
1832-1842 is the earliest possible period if you define the tank as "armoured to the level of being anti-infantry firearms-proof self-propelled engine of war not based on muscle power"
It would be based on.. DC electric engine. The first electric car was built in 1837, and electric locomotive in 1841.
The advantage would be compact, light motor with a low waste heat (compared to steam engine), resulting in thicker armour for same vehicle size and weight. Downsides is the high cost of the non-rechargeable batteries (the likely battery of the era has silver-zinc chemistry) and limited combat range (although the steam versuin would also be limited to ~40km range). Of course, these "tanks" would be not very combat-effective until at least development of Mitrailleuse in 1851 or better some sort of Gatling gun. I can image the newspaper titles like "German army lost the battle because of the thousands German marauders trying to salvage batteries of the captured French electric armored vehicle".
Of course, after the invention of lead-acid battery in 1859, electric tanks can become mainstream rather than niche weapon. By 1865, electric tanks (or rather tankettes, with crew of 2-3 men and weighting 2-6 tons) with a rechargeable lead-acid battery and a Gatling gun, can be mass-produced.
It would superficially resemble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carden_Loyd_tankette
P.S. With internal combustion engines reaching production phase in 1856, tanks are going to return to OTL composition around 1880, as reliability problems of internal combustion engines would be sorted out.
It would be based on.. DC electric engine. The first electric car was built in 1837, and electric locomotive in 1841.
The advantage would be compact, light motor with a low waste heat (compared to steam engine), resulting in thicker armour for same vehicle size and weight. Downsides is the high cost of the non-rechargeable batteries (the likely battery of the era has silver-zinc chemistry) and limited combat range (although the steam versuin would also be limited to ~40km range). Of course, these "tanks" would be not very combat-effective until at least development of Mitrailleuse in 1851 or better some sort of Gatling gun. I can image the newspaper titles like "German army lost the battle because of the thousands German marauders trying to salvage batteries of the captured French electric armored vehicle".
Of course, after the invention of lead-acid battery in 1859, electric tanks can become mainstream rather than niche weapon. By 1865, electric tanks (or rather tankettes, with crew of 2-3 men and weighting 2-6 tons) with a rechargeable lead-acid battery and a Gatling gun, can be mass-produced.
It would superficially resemble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carden_Loyd_tankette
P.S. With internal combustion engines reaching production phase in 1856, tanks are going to return to OTL composition around 1880, as reliability problems of internal combustion engines would be sorted out.
Last edited:
Internal combustion engines were essentially exclusively stationary power sources until the late 1870s / early 1880s when a few tinkerers like Selden and Benz tried using them to propel wagons or carriages--and even then, it wasn't until the 1890s that the internal combustion engine was sufficiently developed to make vehicular propulsion practical. Don't forget that for much of the early years, IC engines using the Otto cycle were so-called "hit and miss" engines that were called upon to deliver steady power via a large flywheel.
A possible tweak for the 'Electric Tank' would be mild articulation per Sno-Cats with two short track-layer segments rather than one overloaded or over-torqued machine.
Braided electrical cables are rather more reliable and much easier to protect than flexible steam trunks...
IIRC, Gatling followed up his original hand-wound weapon with an electric version. Due to purblind folk in the logistics corps, neither made an impact in ACW.
Put a quick-firer cannon per horse artillery and a couple of Gatlings in the front segment, a puckel-gun and rifle-man in the back to 'Watch the Six', spread the weight. It would suit electrical, especially if the batteries are split ~ 30/70 to offset the main gun's weight and improve obstacle crossing...
Perhaps tow a limber with a steam-powered generator as far as 'start' line...
Braided electrical cables are rather more reliable and much easier to protect than flexible steam trunks...
IIRC, Gatling followed up his original hand-wound weapon with an electric version. Due to purblind folk in the logistics corps, neither made an impact in ACW.
Put a quick-firer cannon per horse artillery and a couple of Gatlings in the front segment, a puckel-gun and rifle-man in the back to 'Watch the Six', spread the weight. It would suit electrical, especially if the batteries are split ~ 30/70 to offset the main gun's weight and improve obstacle crossing...
Perhaps tow a limber with a steam-powered generator as far as 'start' line...
trurle
Banned
For early "Electric tank" versions the half-track arrangement seems to be more practical. Advantage is what you can steer without reducing a propulsion power. Something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-track#/media/File:Holt75pk.jpg
Four-tracks arrangement may be an interim configuration to propel a larger vehicle while large electric motors are still not available.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1o8KmiQIlxU/Ub3SsAP4B6I/AAAAAAAAHJc/lEbTiLpM41w/s1600/ss30.jpg
As about multiple-weapons "Electric tanks", these would be definitely built, but few decades after fielding a first prototypes. Your idea of tank armed with (1xQF Gun, 2xGatlings, 1xRifle, 1xPuckle Gun) seems to replicate a multi-turreted tanks idea popular in 1930s.
Uh, more like a WW1 tank with a limited traverse bow cannon, perhaps spewing grape or canister with 'solid' for fixed defences, sponsons with the Gatlings, and firing slits in the caboose.
No turrets.
Well, not at first...
Besides, turrets & turret rings are HEAVY and complicated, requiring massive machining & casting. This first model of beast is basically a riveted, sloping box covering an iron frame. No body curves. Perhaps a timber sub-frame to catch rivets flying from the seams. More a 'Technical' than a full-blown tank...
No turrets.
Well, not at first...
Besides, turrets & turret rings are HEAVY and complicated, requiring massive machining & casting. This first model of beast is basically a riveted, sloping box covering an iron frame. No body curves. Perhaps a timber sub-frame to catch rivets flying from the seams. More a 'Technical' than a full-blown tank...
trurle
Banned
Generally i agree. Therefore, the critical components for tank development:
1837 - DC electric car
1856 - Dreadnaught wheels (precursor of continous track)
1858 - Armstrong gun
1859 - Lead-acid battery
1861 - Revolving gun turret: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aetna-class_ironclad_floating_battery
1862 - Gatling gun
Therefore, vehicles resembling modern tanks can be designed from ~1860, with some operational deployment from 1862.
I personally think Gatling gun tank versions can appear sooner than Armstrong gun-armed versions, because Gatling gun is much lighter and smaller, allowing to create a turret-less design with a simple firing slit at front, and still have a decent barrel turn rate. With the high cost of iron and steel in 1860 (because industrial production was ~1/3 of WWI period), reducing the size of tank would be very important during development. Basically, Gatling-gun tank versions can be approximately half as heavy as 3-pounder tank version, resulting in shorter development cycle.
As about multiple-cannons WWI tanks, they started from 28 tons initial weight. The WWI tanks derived from British Mk I were too large even for 1918, as evidenced by the ultimately numerical dominance of the 7-ton Renault FT during the later stages of the WWI. Extrapolating such evolution to 1860, you can imagine ~9 tons, cannon-and-small-arms armed prototypes rapidly phased out in favor of 2-4 tons, Gatling gun-armed tankettes. If cannon-armed tanks will be able to go past a prototype stage at all.
P.S. In terms of firepower, Gatling gun was also much superior to hand-loaded guns. 350 RPM, 14.7mm Gatling spew the same shot weight as 47-mm 3-pounder at 11 RPM. Practical fire rate for early breech loaders was likely about 4 RPM though.
Last edited: