Truck and tank technology

[Tanthalas]

as far ahead as our ships are, i dont see any reason our armies wouldnt be advancing at the same pace

[Korpen]

as far ahead as our ships are, i dont see any reason our armies wouldnt be advancing at the same pace

Our ships are not really that far ahead, but they are different.

In my experience, historically people usally had good reason for doing what they did, and not did.

I think motorisation of operational units to be false economics, the only level were motorisation might matter is in higher echelon supply

[Carthaginian]

I think i agree with Rocky.
I do not really see much need for an independent tech in this are at this point in time.
In the beginning of ww1 the French army hade less the 300 vehicles of all types, and no other army really hade much more then that.

Differences in N-verse tech and organization and OTL ones make this somewhat moot.
Comparing the machines we can produce in either world in a given time period is generally OK, because though we are ahead of the times a bit, we are not profoundly so. We do, however, have a more 'technology rich' world than OTL- tech of a given level is more common and widespread. It's not unlikely that Mr. Ford's plant in the UNK isn't already churning out mass-produced Model T's.

Until post ww1, I think a motorised unit would not be able to move any faster or further then a horse-drawn unit as the top speed of most truck loaded was often less then 8km/h. The only advantage of motorisation was the ability to pull heavy pieces in a single load, allowing more heavy artillery in the field.

I don't know where you got that figure... a Model T could make 10 mph reliably over good, flat ground (like the Great Plains) and get up to 15 mph - 20 mph on a decent wagon trail (which exist in abundance). This is what they were MADE FOR. Hell, one can make 8 kph driving BACKWARDS all day- you greatly underestimate a vehicle which has many, many running examples approaching 100 years old.

8 KPH is a horse walking easily... not a car.

In fact, lots of trucks would slow the unit down on both the tactical and strategic lever. On the tactical level due to the fact that truck had much worse off-road capability then horse teams, and strategically as they were trickier to load on to trains. This possibly leaves a slight advantage on the operational level.

Have loaded cows and horses on a cattle trailer and a HUMVEE on a train.
I preferred the latter... a lot less work. All you need is someone to direct you. You don't have to fight with an unwilling animal, etc.

Motorisation may make an impact at army or corp. level supply, but as we do not really have any rules for that atm...

That's what we are discussing.

[miketr]

Mikes thoughts...

1) I don't see any nation sinking the cash in peace into something like the early WW1 tanks and certainly not in numbers till one of the two occurs. 

A major war occurs were positional warfare is the main form of combat.   This said given enough time someone would at least look at the idea.  By enough time I would say the mid 20's and that's just to open the door for something like the Mark I / Mother and 5 or 10 more years to work up to something really useful like the Mark IV or V heavy break through tank.  Wars are pressure cookers for innovation.

2) What people were working on before the First World War were armored cars and motorization artillery.  Without the to move 30 tons of armor, MG's and medium cannon across no mans land this trend would continue.  In time motorization of selection units would occur, medic, HQ, logistics, etc.  In time the armored cars would evolve into something more capable of off road / cross country which leads us to the Tankette, light (compared to the Mark I), armed with 1 / 2 MG's or a light cannon.  So I could see something like Renault FT-17 or the German Leichter Kampfwagen I showing up by 1920 without the trenches.  This combined with a steady motorization of the army first in the support services and then moving to the rest from there.

[P3D]

Historically, the two main precursor of tank development were the Burstyn tank and the   Holt tractor.
Without trenches in abundance, those tanks would be more "cruiser tank" like  - equipped with a MG, perhaps a low-velocity 3-5cm gun, and relatively reliable. I think they would be something like the faster FT17 versions, like the NC27 or the Fiat 3000, after several prototypes, appearing in the early 1920s, but not significantly later than OTL.

[Borys]

The most motorised army in the world in 1914 was that of the richest country - Britain.
Yet the single item number one item in supplies to the BEF - over 1914-18 - was animal fodder.

I think that in 1909 - which we are in now - there can be tractors for artillery (due to lack of horses Italy can be a leader) , some trucks and ambulances, and the first armoured cars.

I believe that anything approaching a fully motorised corps level formation was not possible before the late 20s. Here I'd admit Visionary Level Specialised Corps (double time) for 1918.

Tanks - of the fortification storming variety - let there be visionaries researching them from 1909 onwards. Also double time.

As there already are armoured cars here, the start date should be 1906.

As to Ford T - with the OTL US split between 3 countries, maybe there wold be no Ford T here?
Borys

[Carthaginian]

As to Ford T - with the OTL US split between 3 countries, maybe there wold be no Ford T here?
Borys

LOL... only thing that made Ford 'great' was that he viewed a line-based meat-processing plant and decided to put cars together in the same manner that the animals there were butchered- one person doing the same job over and over.

This is a PARTIAL list of the auto manufacturers in NA in 1904:
    * American Darracq Automobile Company (New York, New York)
    * Apperson Brothers Automobile Company (Kokomo, Indiana)
    * Auburn Automobile Company (Auburn, Indiana)
    * Autocar Company (Ardmore, Pennsylvania)
    * Automobile Exchange and Storage Company (New York, New York)
    * Baker Motor Vehicle Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * Berg Automobile Company (New York, New York)
    * Buffalo Electric Carriage Company (Buffalo, New York)
    * Cadillac Automobile Company (Detroit, Michigan)
    * Central Automobile Company (New York, New York)
    * Clodio and Widmayer (New York, New York)
    * Columbus Motor Vehicle Company (Columbus, Ohio)
    * B. V. Covert and Company (Lockport, New York)
    * Crest Manufacturing Company (Cambridge, Massachusetts)
    * Daimler Manufacturing Company (Long Island City, New York)
    * Duryea Power Company (Reading, Pennsylvania)
    * Eisenhuth Horseless Vehicle Company (Middletown, Connecticut)
    * Electric Vehicle Company (Hartford, Connecticut)
    * Elmore Manufacturing Company (Clyde, Ohio)
    * Ford Motor Company (Detroit, Michigan)
    * Societe Franco-Americaine d'Automobiles (New York, New York)
    * H. H. Franklin Manufacturing Company (Syracuse, New York)
    * Fredonia Manufacturing Company (Youngstown, Ohio)
    * Grout Brothers (Orange, Massachusetts)
    * Haynes-Apperson Company (Kokomo, Indiana)
    * Holley Motor Car Company (Bradford, Pennsylvania)
    * Thos. B. Jeffery Company (Kenosha, Wisconsin)
    * Kirk Manufacturing Company (Toledo, Ohio)
    * Knox Automobile Company (Springfield, Massachusetts)
    * Locomobile Company of America (Bridgeport, Connecticut)
    * National Motor Vehicle Company (Indianapolis, Indiana)
    * National Sewing Machine Company (Belvidere, Illinois)
    * Northern Manufacturing Company (Detroit, Michigan)
    * Olds Motor Works (Detroit, Michigan)
    * Packard Motor Car Company (Detroit, Michigan)
    * Panhard-Levassor (Paris, France)
    * Peerless Motor Car Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * Phelps Motor Vehicle Company (Stoneham, Massachusetts)
    * George N. Pierce Company (Buffalo, New York)
    * Pope-Robinson Company (Hyde Park, Massachusetts)
    * Pope-Toledo Company (Toledo, Ohio)
    * Pope-Waverly Company (Indianapolis, Indiana)
    * Premier Motor Manufacturing Company (Indianapolis, Indiana)
    * Renault (New York, New York)
    * Rochet-Schneider (New York, New York)
    * Royal Motor Car Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * Sandusky Automobile Company (Sandusky, Ohio)
    * K. A. Skinner (Boston, Massachusetts)
    * Smith and Mabley (New York, New York)
    * St. Louis Motor Carriage Company (St. Louis, Missouri)
    * Standard Automobile Company of New York (New York, New York)
    * Stanley Motor Carriage Company (Newton, Massachusetts)
    * F. B. Stearns Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * J. Stevens Arms and Tool Company (Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts)
    * Studebaker Brothers Company (South Bend, Indiana)
    * E. R. Thomas Motor Company (Buffalo, New York)
    * Waltham Manufacturing Company (Waltham, Massachusetts)
    * White Sewing Machine Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * Wilson Automobile Manufacturing Company (Wilson, New York)
    * Winton Motor Carriage Company (Cleveland, Ohio)
    * Woods Motor Vehicle Company (Chicago, Illinois)

Surely, Ford couldn't be the only one of the many here (and many more not listed) able to figure out that 2+2 didn't equal 4, but rather millions and millions of dollars.


EDIT: a more complete listing of the car makers that have went under over the years in the US.

Moon Motors is claimed by the CSA. ;)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Ford's market would be 1/3rd or 1/4th of OTL.

As to the companies you've listed - wouldn't the term "workshop" by more apt? I'd venture that most were making - by hand - half a dozen cars a year?
Borys

[Tanthalas]

Ahoj!
Ford's market would be 1/3rd or 1/4th of OTL.

As to the companies you've listed - wouldn't the term "workshop" by more apt? I'd venture that most were making - by hand - half a dozen cars a year?
Borys

actualy several of them lasted into the 20s, most were Victims of the great depression and several of them actualy followed the ford school of mass production.  Ill grant that not all were big producers, but if you look at that list Cadillac no slouch, Packard, Studebaker, and one most wont know Peerless (they are the makers of Peterbuilt Trucks)  Packard and Studebaker were taken over by GM

[Borys]

Ahoj!
We are looking at 1909.

But back on topic  - any suggestions of what could be researched and when?

BTW - off topic again - I'm starting to see merit in Carthaginian's suggestion, which (I think) might be summed up as
Line Infantry
Special Infantry (any kind)
Cavalary

Borys

[Tanthalas]

Ahoj!
We are looking at 1909.

But back on topic  - any suggestions of what could be researched and when?

BTW - off topic again - I'm starting to see merit in Carthaginian's suggestion, which (I think) might be summed up as
Line Infantry
Special Infantry (any kind)
Cavalary

Borys

Like I stated erlier I think armord cars arnt out of line curently, nor are limited use trucks.  Even Special units like my desert legion wouldnt be to unrealistic (it is going to get semi broken up once i can actualy use it in combat).  Real tanks no way, not for a couple more years anyway.  There just isnt the reason for them, now if I was fighting in africa with my desert legions there might be reason to develop somthing to counter my armored cars.

for me as is atm im trying to figure out how to break them up im leaning toward "Manuvers" dictating that they are to heavily grouped.

[Carthaginian]

Ahoj!
Ford's market would be 1/3rd or 1/4th of OTL.

As to the companies you've listed - wouldn't the term "workshop" by more apt? I'd venture that most were making - by hand - half a dozen cars a year?
Borys

Don't know about them, but Ford produced 7000 Model N's (1906-1908), 2500 Model R's (1907) and 3750 Model S's (1907-1909, concurrent with the non-'mass production' first run Model T's).

That's 13,250 cars in 3 years, affordable by most families on similar budgetary constraints as purchasing one today, and before 'mass production'.

Oldsmobile made 450 cars in 1901!
Even in 1910-13, at an astronomical $4,200 PER CAR, they sold 750!

[miketr]

With a nights sleep here are some additional thoughts and a little more specific on our militaries.

I like how some of the solutions have armor as a brigade add on, IE small scale at first. 

Looking at what was written about having the specialist infantry tech split off from the Cavalry tree I can see for or against the idea so no issue with either solution really.

A question about siege artillery in the tech tree examples; what type of siege artillery do people have in mind with that?  As siege artillery goes back a long way.  What I am thinking of is truly modern and massive examples like the Krupp Gamma 420mm or the Skoda 305mm weapons and in time the Nazi's 800mm monsters.  The Krupp build Gustav was a monster weighing over 1,000 tons, needing a special concrete pad to be built and needing a large train to handle all its support.

For tech tree ideas for tanks what do people think of something like this.

Motorization ($0.5 and 0.25 BP per level of Motorization)

1900 Experimental:  A few cars and trucks have been bought by your army to see what they can do; everything else follows from this.

1910 Support Units: Several army support functions, but not all, such as HQ, logistics, artillery, etc have been equipped with trucks.  This is the level that Nazi's Germany's infantry units were at during most of WW2; the Wehrmacht had more horses, mules and donkeys than the Kaisers army.

1920 Uniform Support Motorization: Basically everything other than leg infantry now rolls to battle.  This would be the level of the US infantry in WW2.

1930 Whole Motorization: The leg infantry now have wheels also.

Light Armor (allows a lower level attachment (regiment or brigade or whatever your armies equivalent is) or independent formation that costs $2 per level plus a flat 1 BP)

1905 Experimental Armored Cars:  Someone in your army decided to slap a machine gun and some sheet steel onto one of those cars or trucks to see what it can do.  This tech requires experimental motorization.

1910 Armored Car Unit: A few units have been given armored cars; mostly for use in scouting.

1915 Basic Tankette: The need for better cross country mobility has led to use of tracks; 5 to 15 tons and no more than machine guns or light cannon.  Reliability of the Tankette can be an issue.  Still in numbers these can break trench lines.

1920 Improved Tankette:  Faster and improved reliability of the Tankette; still a support unit and not a formation onto itself.

Heavy Armor (allows a lower level attachment (regiment or brigade or whatever your armies equivalent is) or independent formation that costs $4 per level plus a flat 4 BP)

1910 Experimental Tank:  Someone has decided that those armored cars or perhaps an artillery prime mover show the way to even larger mechanical monsters. The result is a tank like the British Mark I "Mother", French St Chamond or German AV7; and just like there real world contemporary would be highly unreliable mechanically. Requires Experimental Armored Cars or Motorized Support Units

1915 Basic Tanks: Can now build fairly reliable tanks in numbers and have the tactics to make use of them.  This allows the production of something like the British Mark IV/V or German A7V/U (a mark IV clone).

1925 Improved Tanks: Much better mechanical reliability and designs; use of turrets instead of hull mounts, smaller crews, etc. 
   
Some general thoughts on the above.  As long as there are only Light Armor you can break a trench warfare deadlock and is better at it from a cost point of view.  The problem is once the other side also has armor of its own or dedicated anti armor tactics (anti-tank rifles, tank traps, small cannon trained to fire at moving targets, etc) a heavier solution is needed.  The Imperial Japanese army for the most part was light armor but since its main combat area was China which lacked armor of its own and the tactics to deal with armor it was more than enough to do the job.

I would see no reason why someone could take a corps and do all three at once; motorize it, give it light armor and heavy armor formations.  In time (early 1930's) things would advance to the point of creating corps / division level armor formations.  The Heavy armor formations wouldn't be really be able to add a light formation because of the tanks size and speed; all you end up with is a light formation that's lost its mobility edge and doesn't have an infantry division firepower advantage.

Costs on thoughts, Great War a tank brigade (a few hundred Mark V's, call 400 of the things) and its matching infantry corps.  It would be $10 and 1.25 BP for the infantry and another $8 and 4 BP for the heavy armor or $4 and 1 BP if you use light tanks.  The heavy brigade costs nearly as much as a single infantry corps and uses way more BP.  The BP costs of the armor might need to be moved the heavy tanks were around 30 tons a piece and the lights closer to 5 to 10 ton range call it 7.5 ton average for a great war light tank.  Depending on how you do the math 400 heavy tanks would use weigh in at 12,000 tons and the lights 3,000 tons of steel number a 4 to 1 ratio.  At the same time would we want to charge a full BP value for armor?  If so increase the costs to 12 BP and $12 plus... $6 per level of improvement beyond experimental for the heavy armor and $4 & 4 BP plus $2 per level of improvement.  It might also be worth making the light tanks more expensive like we have TB/DD's more expensive so, $5 and $2.5 per level of improvement.

End of Mikes thoughts.

[P3D]

The only armored car formation in N-verse what Orange inherited from N2, but I did not expand the capacity.
For Orange it would make sense to have armored cars in large quantity to patrol along the northern border regions, where cavalry use is restricted/expensive due to the tsetse fly.

[Tanthalas]

For Italia it was simple logistics, do you know how much watter a horse needs a day?  I dont have exact numbers but its ALOT, add to that you have to haul fead for them in the desert, and you end up with it being logical to look for other meens of transportation.  I have said a half dozen times and ill say it again Realisticly I dont expect my desert legions to operate all that diferently than any other of similar tech.  The what I say they have is mostly for story line and fleshing out purposes.

Now if I was puting my infantry in bren carriers i could see a problem =P