WWI without the deployment of British tanks

Just a thought provoking scenario. What if the British never deployed tanks during the Battle of Amiens, or say they were never invented? Maybe some sort of other technology would have taken its place? How do you think the war would've ended?
 
The independently developed French tanks are deployed or the British learn of them at some point, the British soon realizing their mistake and reversing course, with very little changing in the war.
 
The French heavy Chars are Merde and would only serve to convince sceptics that tracked armoured fighting vehicles are a silly idea with no future. The creeping barrage, bite and hold strategy and bypassing strongpoints would be how the British broke through the Hindenburg line, followed up by sending the Cavalry and Armoured Cars to disrupt the German rear areas and prevent them forming a new defensive line. The Hundred Days advance would cover less ground and suffer more casualties but the end result would be the same. The Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians would still collapse, the German Navy would still mutiny and the Kaiser would still be forced to abdicate and flee to The Netherlands. Faced with famine, mutiny, the collapse of its allies and the failure of the army to repel the allied advance in the west the Germans would still have to beg an armistice, though it may be able to delay that a few extra weeks.
 
The little Renault FT17 would be seen by most as a slow armoured car with better cross country performance than its wheeled equivalent vehicles, however it still wouldn't be able to cross badly torn up ground or trenches.
 
I honestly think that the tank as a viable weapon of war would not get a headstart ITTL, though it is possible that armored cars would replace its role.
 
The little Renault FT17 would be seen by most as a slow armoured car with better cross country performance than its wheeled equivalent vehicles, however it still wouldn't be able to cross badly torn up ground or trenches.
A slow armored car with better cross country performance is what people wanted, though it might just straight up be butterflied all together.
 
Let's work through this logically. The army wants a big gun with better mobility than towed artillery. The logical answer is to put the gun on a self-propelled platform. A truck would work for this role. However, you'll need to be capable of direct fire if you want to closely support infantry assaults and utilize the better mobility. If you're capable of direct fire at the enemy, the enemy is capable of direct fire at you. A big artillery gun on a truck is going to draw a lot of fire, so it'll need to be armored to maintain its effectiveness in combat. However, that armor will add a lot of weight and therefore decrease mobility on everything but hard-packed road surface. To compensate for that, you'll need to change from wheels to another system. The logical choice for this replacement is a tracked drive system, which provides excellent cross-country mobility. Therefore, you'll end up with a fully tracked, fully armored vehicle with a big gun.
 
If tanks were either not invented during the WW1 or more likely invented as the char range as Peg Leg Pom says and thought useless then the outcome of the great war doesn't change but the second world war could be altered, the Germans aren't on the receiving end of this terrifying weapon and so don't invest in the tank centred blitzkrieg during the interwar years
 
The earliest tank concepts in the 20th century are from before the war. A frenchman proposed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levavasseur_project in 1903. An austrian proposed another in 1911, and an australian in 1912. So the idea had been growing for a while. WWI just provided the ground for it to spread. If the british hadn't done it, the french would take over, starting with the FT17 (the St. Chamond was simply too bad.)
 
Tracks were still needed to break the stalemate of trench warfare.
The other option is developing 8-wheeled trucks to cross rough terrain.
 
I dont think Tanks were all that important up to the Armistice, certainly the Germans didnt think a great deal about them stories of the "Tank terror" seem to be just that stories. The 1919 plans would have been different with thousands of tanks available.

I always understood that the German Tank Operation tactics were inspired by the realisation that Trench Warfare stalemate could only be broken by fast flanking manouvers. A tactic well used during Operation Michael.
 
The earliest tank concepts in the 20th century are from before the war. A frenchman proposed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levavasseur_project in 1903. An austrian proposed another in 1911, and an australian in 1912. So the idea had been growing for a while. WWI just provided the ground for it to spread. If the british hadn't done it, the french would take over, starting with the FT17 (the St. Chamond was simply too bad.)

This brings me back to the question of armored fighting vehicle development absent any Great War before the 1930s.
 
Armoured cars would still be developed but mainly for colonial policing. Once you've got practical motor transport it's inevitable that at some point it will be modified to both carry weapons and provide some protection against hostile fire. Development might actually be quicker than real life as there would be no expensive tank corps competing for funds. At some point though I think that armoured half tracks will emerge with light canon instead of machine guns.
 
Top