Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

Real Tanks

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Real Tanks
Post by phillies   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:19 am

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1791
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Mindful that there is some time to develop, some readers will propose that Charisian Marines need tanks. (I am not one of them, but your mileage may vary.)

Appropriate tanks are doubtless those proposed in the WW1-WW2 period, especially those with steam power. Recalling the author's fondness for battleships, I call readers' attentions to the hypothetical French Marianne (or so I am told) ultraheavy tank. It's not small, like Maus. In the figure, note in particular the battleship influence in the superstructure, the healthy supply of sponson guns, the lavish supply of 16" guns, the car directly to the front, and, of course, the two anchors on the prow.

https://www.facebook.com/22224853832071 ... =1&theater
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:37 am

Dilandu
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

phillies wrote:Mindful that there is some time to develop, some readers will propose that Charisian Marines need tanks. (I am not one of them, but your mileage may vary.)

Appropriate tanks are doubtless those proposed in the WW1-WW2 period, especially those with steam power. Recalling the author's fondness for battleships, I call readers' attentions to the hypothetical French Marianne (or so I am told) ultraheavy tank. It's not small, like Maus. In the figure, note in particular the battleship influence in the superstructure, the healthy supply of sponson guns, the lavish supply of 16" guns, the car directly to the front, and, of course, the two anchors on the prow.

https://www.facebook.com/22224853832071 ... =1&theater


Tanks are theoretically possible, but for what reason? Tanks appeared as a means to traverse no man land under hail of bullets and shrapnel, which made traditional infantry assaults too costly. Currently, there aren't any machineguns or quick-firing guns on Safehold.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by phillies   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:12 pm

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1791
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Dilandu wrote:
phillies wrote:Mindful that there is some time to develop, some readers will propose that Charisian Marines need tanks. (I am not one of them, but your mileage may vary.)

Appropriate tanks are doubtless those proposed in the WW1-WW2 period, especially those with steam power. Recalling the author's fondness for battleships, I call readers' attentions to the hypothetical French Marianne (or so I am told) ultraheavy tank. It's not small, like Maus. In the figure, note in particular the battleship influence in the superstructure, the healthy supply of sponson guns, the lavish supply of 16" guns, the car directly to the front, and, of course, the two anchors on the prow.

https://www.facebook.com/22224853832071 ... =1&theater


Tanks are theoretically possible, but for what reason? Tanks appeared as a means to traverse no man land under hail of bullets and shrapnel, which made traditional infantry assaults too costly. Currently, there aren't any machineguns or quick-firing guns on Safehold.


True, but rifled muskets are already adequate to create this difficulty, as folks following Hardee's infantry tactical manual rapidly learned during the War of the Slaveholder's Rebellion.
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:38 pm

Dilandu
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

phillies wrote:
True, but rifled muskets are already adequate to create this difficulty, as folks following Hardee's infantry tactical manual rapidly learned during the War of the Slaveholder's Rebellion.


Nah. As long as it's just rifle muskets and not machineguns & magazine fast-firing rifles, tanks would be more a problem than an advantage. Especially steam-powered ones, which have unfortunate problem of super-heated steam inside.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Dilandu   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:46 pm

Dilandu
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

To put it simply, tank in essence is machinegun killer. The main goal of tanks was to traverse no-man land, move through engineering obstacles, and destroy enemy machineguns, so infantry could move on. Even today, the main goal of tanks is still to provide the mechanized infantry armor support & fast-moving firepower.

On Safehold battlefields, there are no targets (currently) worthy of tank deployment. Without massed machineguns, it's just impossible to create the amount of fire, capable of stopping the infantry charge. Artillery could do that, yes, but artillery & counter-artillery fire are interlinked.

And tanks are heavy. They aren't easy to haul around, and tanks that Charis COULD build clearly would not have any kind of "strategic mobility". They would need to be moved by railroads or on barges by channels, which basically meant that they are not suitable for any kind of maneuvering warfare, only for trench war scenarios.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by dobriennm   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:50 pm

dobriennm
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:44 pm

Dilandu wrote:To put it simply, tank in essence is machinegun killer. The main goal of tanks was to traverse no-man land, move through engineering obstacles, and destroy enemy machineguns, so infantry could move on. Even today, the main goal of tanks is still to provide the mechanized infantry armor support & fast-moving firepower.

On Safehold battlefields, there are no targets (currently) worthy of tank deployment. Without massed machineguns, it's just impossible to create the amount of fire, capable of stopping the infantry charge. Artillery could do that, yes, but artillery & counter-artillery fire are interlinked.

And tanks are heavy. They aren't easy to haul around, and tanks that Charis COULD build clearly would not have any kind of "strategic mobility". They would need to be moved by railroads or on barges by channels, which basically meant that they are not suitable for any kind of maneuvering warfare, only for trench war scenarios.


Well, they don't have machine guns now, but they were getting close to magazine fed semiautomatic rifles. I thought there were even hints that they were very, very close, but chose to go with the simpler magazine fed bolt-action rifles so they could mass produce them in enough time/quantity to make a difference at the front.

As for trench warfare, what the Harchonese(sp?) Army commander had come up with was pretty close to what the Germans were doing in the latter half of World War I. Not just the layout of the trenches and lines, but the tactical defense/stategic offense tactics to fight and bleed the Charisans. and given time they may have been able to handle the more powerful artillery shells and "bunker busters".

So in the approximately 2 decades after the end of the war, Charis will likely have semiautomatic rifles and even belt fed machine guns. And then everyone else will too. And then everything is in place for World War I trench warfare.

But, it really depends on how the Charisans and Sidmarkian armies are planning on fighting the next war. If they plan on sitting tight and letting the fight come to them, then maybe a Maginot line will do. If they plan on taking the fight to the enemy, then they need to figure out mobility and breaking thru trench lines equipped with machine guns.

And maybe they have two types of tanks. One "heavy" tank to break thru and one light tank for strategic mobility after the break thru.

And all this is also strategic political decision. As you are building up your army for the next war, how much do you want to look like you are building an army of conquest vs. a defensive army? After all, the Inner Circle wants technology to advance, but they want that technology to be tightly integrated into everyday life of everyone on the planet, which means civilian type technology. Then, when the Archangels return, wiping out advanced technology means wiping out the human race which they hope nobody is insane enough to do.

So you really want the civilian technology to permeate society, not force an arms race which concentrates soley on military tech. Yes, advances in military tech will advance civilian tech, but not if over just 20 years every other society than Charis is throwing everything into a military buldup, worried that Charis is planning on conquering them the next year, i.e., Charis is worried about the war 20 years down the road, and everyone else thinks they need to be worried about next year.
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Erls   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:24 pm

Erls
Commander

Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:09 pm

With RFC's purported love of steampunk, I don't think tanks are out of the question at all.

First- we already know that Charis is introducing late 19th century era steam power. Given another 10+ years of development, it is not out of the question that they will be able to come up with a motor capable of powering a non-tracked vehicle on treads. Even with a low weight (1 ton or so), if it has two/three machine that can traverse and is impervious to small arms it would bust open any trench warfare.

Second- it is certainly (I think) within the realm of possibility that steam powered buses (and trucks) have been introduced. It's a "small" leap from building a locomotive capable of hauling massive amounts of material on a fixed course to building a much smaller engine capable of hauling ~50 people. And from there, it isn't a gigantic leap to introduce a wheel system capable of turning. Thus, you could actually see it's initial introduction as Tellesberg buses that just happen to lead into tanks.

Third- there is text that they are working on refining oil production and introducing that as a new scientific field. If capable of doing so, the question then becomes how to start an internal combustion without an electrical source. Maybe some bright, thoughtful, non-Inner Circle individual comes up with a way to have a temporary pilot light in order to ignite a gas-powered internal combustion engine.

Not saying any of this will happen, but it is possible...
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Annachie   » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:44 pm

Annachie
Admiral

Posts: 2322
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

In essence we've already had both tanks, and a version of blitzkreig warfare from them.

Which is probably as close as Safehold will get until they decide to risk a diesel engine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by phillies   » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:11 am

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1791
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

That's the old British doctrine on infantry tanks. It was wrong.

Dilandu wrote:To put it simply, tank in essence is machinegun killer. The main goal of tanks was to traverse no-man land, move through engineering obstacles, and destroy enemy machineguns, so infantry could move on. Even today, the main goal of tanks is still to provide the mechanized infantry armor support & fast-moving firepower.

On Safehold battlefields, there are no targets (currently) worthy of tank deployment. Without massed machineguns, it's just impossible to create the amount of fire, capable of stopping the infantry charge. Artillery could do that, yes, but artillery & counter-artillery fire are interlinked.

And tanks are heavy. They aren't easy to haul around, and tanks that Charis COULD build clearly would not have any kind of "strategic mobility". They would need to be moved by railroads or on barges by channels, which basically meant that they are not suitable for any kind of maneuvering warfare, only for trench war scenarios.
Top
Re: Real Tanks
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:57 am

Dilandu
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

phillies wrote:That's the old British doctrine on infantry tanks. It was wrong.


It was the initial tank doctrine. And it is the only one that Safehould could even contemplate of using.
------------------------------

- Who would won in battle between strawman Liberal-Democrat and strawman Conservative-Republican?
- Scarecrow from Oz; he was strawman before it became political.

P.S. - And he have Russian twin, to watch his back)
Top

Return to Safehold