Tank treads were in their infancy in the 1860s, and steam powered vehicles just as much so (although this is more because they had so much trouble competing with trains and animal-driven vehicles their potential was underexplored). It would theoretically be possible to make a steam tank, it would just be an absolute waste of time, money, and resources, like the later Landkreuzer Ratte and Monster of WWII. This would make the Maus look like a viable, useful tank.
Impact of steam driven tanks on the American Civil War?
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
Roughly, one watt hour will raise one kg 1000 feet, so this is about 100 watts, or what one man can do working steadily all day.
They could not overcome trenches, rocks, trees and may sink in mud. But fantastic animation.Assuming the Union (it would have been the union at first) were able to develop the technology would tanks have been the game changers they were when they were introduced during WW1?
Also what kind of doctrines would have been devised in their use? Breaking through trenches would not have been as important a goal as it was during WW1.
Last edited:
Md139115
Banned
Your estimates are very good. My calculations yielded 0.12 horsepower, or 89.4 watts.
I have also made a bit of an error. It was his 1858 engine, not the 1860 one being reviewed:
https://patents.google.com/patent/U...+air&q=engine&oq=john+ericsson+hot+air+engine
The sources I have also make clear that this engine was commercially sold based on the size of the piston diameter, with 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 24, and 32 inch models being sold. I don't know which one was being tested here, but given that it is described as internally as one of the smaller engines, I'm inclined to say either the 6", 8", or 12" model. If it was a 12", the overall engine size would have been 4' x 1.5' x 1', judging from the patent drawings, and probably weigh about 20-25 pounds.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
So, way too weak to drive a heavy vehicle even ideal prepared terrain at anything faster than a crawl, much less even a minorly rough battlefield, and definatively not enough to haul a battery of guns, ammo, and several crew as well.
Md139115
Banned
Well, yes, one is definitely not enough, but what about more, much more?
I am already imagining twelve-wheeled treaded vehicles, each wheel axle being run by two engines at 30 degree angles...
FillyofDelphi
Banned
... who's treads would make quite the fine target for a cannonball, and if they get knocked out of alignment would result in you having a very expensive hunk of junk stuck in the middle of the battlefield. Is it technically feesable? Sure, but with the materials and engineering skills required I could have dozens of artillery peices produced instead.
...I think this is where those roving cities from Mortal Engines came from.
If we can get this sucker moving under its own power, even if not particularly well, it'd have decent potential as a (semi-)mobile armored artillery platform.
I'm not sure that's as valuable before the advent of artillery that can fire beyond visual line of sight, though.
If you can load the cannons with grapeshot and resist small arms fire, then the vehicle can serve as the strong point in a defensive line. The defending infantry would love to have point-blank support from cannons that can afford to expose themselves somewhat.
Md139115
Banned
What are we looking at in terms of armament and armor?
For a tank intended for the battlefield, It's most dangerous opponent would be the 20 pounder Parrott rifle, so the plating would have to resist that. I think 2 inches is probably overkill, but that should work. It's targets would really be infantry and whatever trenches they've dug, so one really doesn't need a heavy piece. I think a single 3 inch Ordinance rifle would be enough. This could be doable.
For siege works, that's going to be much heavier. The Union often used XI inch Dahlgrens from the Navy. The South preferred it's home-made 7 inch or 8 inch Brooke rifles. To withstand the latter, the absolute minimum armor thickness would need to be Monitor's 4-5" and probably thicker. The former would be even worse. Tennessee's 6 inches weren't enough to save her from repeated pounding. As for a gun, I don't see anything lower than the 6.4 inch Parrott (100 pounder) being effective. I'm not sure this is possible.
For a tank intended for the battlefield, It's most dangerous opponent would be the 20 pounder Parrott rifle, so the plating would have to resist that. I think 2 inches is probably overkill, but that should work. It's targets would really be infantry and whatever trenches they've dug, so one really doesn't need a heavy piece. I think a single 3 inch Ordinance rifle would be enough. This could be doable.
For siege works, that's going to be much heavier. The Union often used XI inch Dahlgrens from the Navy. The South preferred it's home-made 7 inch or 8 inch Brooke rifles. To withstand the latter, the absolute minimum armor thickness would need to be Monitor's 4-5" and probably thicker. The former would be even worse. Tennessee's 6 inches weren't enough to save her from repeated pounding. As for a gun, I don't see anything lower than the 6.4 inch Parrott (100 pounder) being effective. I'm not sure this is possible.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
In that case, why don't you just have the infantry dig an earthwork bastion? They'd have to do alot of work and not be expecting to move much to want to have a hard defensive point anyways, so why not just add in that tiny bit of extra digging? Saves you the trouble of having to drag that thing along.
Question: The Confederacy pioneered the Submarine, land mines, and created some very innovative ironclads, and built an arms industry from nothing. I could see the Confederacy being first with a prototype, using it on the battlefield, gaining an advantage until the north mass produced its own version and swamped the South.
marathag
Banned
Too heavy. A cubic inch of Steel is around 4.5 ounces, 368 pounds for a square yard of 1" plate
WWI tanks had just enough armor to keep out rifle class jacketed bullets and shell fragments, around 1/2 inch or less, with most areas at 1/4"
And with armor that thin, the Mk IV 'Male' was still 32 tons, with a 105hp class engine, and that was 12.7 psi for ground pressure
The Union had their river monitors, which were basically 16-gun steerable floating fortresses that they used in the Mississippi campaign. Their main task was to bombard the Confederate fortresses or gun emplacements from the riverside - basically from the rear- while the infantry mounted an assault from the land side. If there were a viable track or wheel system with powerful enough steam engine for propulsion, and if this somehow were able to negotiate the treacherous bomb-cratered terrain of a battlefield, I suspect its use would follow the same doctrine: use its armor to outflank the enemy gun position, then stop and pound it with broadside after broadside until the infantry has overrun it.
But, just to give you a reference, the Cairo-class ironclads were 175 ft long but had a crew of 256, almost 100 of them were used to man the 16 cannons. and even then a cannon could only fire once every four minutes.
But, just to give you a reference, the Cairo-class ironclads were 175 ft long but had a crew of 256, almost 100 of them were used to man the 16 cannons. and even then a cannon could only fire once every four minutes.
Last edited:
The real impact of a tank like this would be its later influence. Mate this thing to a tractor and you could speed up the development of steam tractors. Same with steam-powered land vehicles as a whole. Tanks might go either way, since experience will show that this particular tank was a waste of time, but the obvious counter argument is that the technology was too new at the time to show off the full potential.
As noted, it would be completely useless, akin to Nazi wunderwaffen, but worse then anything the Nazis put into service. The Allies didn't need to build a 150-200 ton tank counter to the Maus, because it was a piece of junk, and given its time period and potential uses and massive cost, you have a tank which is even worse.
As noted, it would be completely useless, akin to Nazi wunderwaffen, but worse then anything the Nazis put into service. The Allies didn't need to build a 150-200 ton tank counter to the Maus, because it was a piece of junk, and given its time period and potential uses and massive cost, you have a tank which is even worse.
RodentRevolution
Banned
I like your thinking but the issue here is that the 20lb Parrot had a calibre of 3.67" and as you mentioned there are a whole bunch of rifles with calibres of 3" lurking on ACW battlefields. A shot from a rifled gun is likely to simply plug armour of thickness less than its own bore diameter. On the other hand most artillery on both sides are still smoothbores firing roundshot. Rather than try and anticipate the most dangerous opponent armour the beastie sufficiently against its most common. So around .8" or more but not too much more armour is probably what is needed. Early tanks from OTL for examples were entirely at the mercy of contemporary field guns but by requiring field guns to be brought in to engage them directly they still performed a lot of their mission even when they did not in fact kill, maim or drive off the crew of said weapon and carry on regardless.
The British Army did actually use armoured traction engines during the Boer War, and the traction engine was an 1860's innovation, so it might be possible to have them during the American Civil War I suppose.