Steam

I wasn't talking about a hypothetical armored version of Big Lizzie, I was talking about the real Big Lizzie "Effectively making its own roads."

And i specifically replied to the claims about land dreadnoughts in the style of the pictures linked.

Tractors are nothing new.

There is a point of diminishing returns in tank design where no bridge or road can take the load and power to weight ratios approaches Zero. That doesn't necessarily make steam tanks, or H G Wells "land dreadnaughts," impossible.

Land dreadnaughts, oh yes i would call them very impossible as shown.

You can build them sure. But it´s going to be completely useless for any kind of military action.
Terrain crossing ability is going to suck. It´s not going to come close to human walking speed. Turning is a chore that will take an hour, or a day if you´re not on flat open ground.

Steam tanks are possible yes, but not good.

They are however, part of the issue. Steam trucks, not to mention tanks, are going to be heavy and heavy vehicles require a lot of flotation in the suspension. A continuous track provides that flotation in modern tanks because they provide more flotation than dreadnaught wheels with less weight.

Yes i know. But with those land dreadnoughts, it´s already gone beyond the point where it matters.


*****

BTW Big Lizzie is very heavily built, it is almost twice the weight of a WWI tank empty (42 tons vs 28 tons), moved at 1/10 the speed (1 mile per hour) and its 1/2" to 1" steel plate chassis would be bullet proof to small arms fire (better if the mild steel was replaced with manganese steel) (she also carried 6 months of fuel in the chassis so its effectively a big fuel tank as are its trailers).

Wether it´s bulletproof or not is irrelevant when there isn´t enough of it to protect people using it.

This presents the possibility of tracked supply vehicles and engineer support vehicles (i.e. Bulldozers)if not tracked tanks (but it would be a brave infantry man who would stand in a firing line with a musket with an armored steam engine coming at him).

Oh yes, you have to extremely brave to wait half a day for it to arrive...
And of course no artillery will be aimed at it in the meantime.

Two of them with a wire rope or anchor chain between them would see to most Napoleonic military formations (and forests).

Guess why noone ever did that for real? Doesn´t work that way.

SYED wrote:How far are they from a steam powered submarine like the nautillus? SUre they would need a better fuel than coal, and there would be limitations due to the lack of electronics. but it would be awesome.

If you are working a steam plant, you need a heat source. A heat source implies burning something. Submarine implies closed environment, you will run out of O2 quickly. Using a snorkel would be VERY limiting. Nuclear for a heat source without electricity for controls is just suicide. Subs started as Diesel-Electric propulsion. Diesel on the surface and Electric submerged. Until we see electricity used for other things, I wouldn't look for subs in this series.

What if instead of a steam sub, they make a steam torpedoe ship? A ship that fires torpedoes, they would have to rig them to have either timers or simply impact triggers.

SYED wrote:What if instead of a steam sub, they make a steam torpedoe ship? A ship that fires torpedoes, they would have to rig them to have either timers or simply impact triggers.

Up until WWII, most historical torpedoes ran on steam, and with no requirement for sparkly bits, it could work well.

And as long as you don´t mind them getting large, you could also get insane range.

Most common way to do it was by having a pressurised flame in a chamber, and then inject water right onto the flame, for instant steam.

Early torpedoes are likely not all that accurate, but still have the potential to be very devastating.

how noisy are torpedoes? We know charis has a habit of silent sneak attacks at sea. Instead of using canons to announce themselves, they use torpedoes exploding ships. with out the cannons blasting and ships with no running lights, how would they see them.

Hi SYED,

Seawater is a quite effective sound dampener.

The problem with Charis inventing torpedoes is why show its enemies better ways of how to sink ships, just like mines.

Since it will take its enemies at least several years to build effective steamships, torpedoes aren't needed by the ICN anytime soon.

L

SYED wrote:how noisy are torpedoes? We know charis has a habit of silent sneak attacks at sea. Instead of using canons to announce themselves, they use torpedoes exploding ships. with out the cannons blasting and ships with no running lights, how would they see them.

iranuke wrote:

SYED wrote:How far are they from a steam powered submarine like the nautillus? SUre they would need a better fuel than coal, and there would be limitations due to the lack of electronics. but it would be awesome.

If you are working a steam plant, you need a heat source. A heat source implies burning something. Submarine implies closed environment, you will run out of O2 quickly. Using a snorkel would be VERY limiting. Nuclear for a heat source without electricity for controls is just suicide. Subs started as Diesel-Electric propulsion. Diesel on the surface and Electric submerged. Until we see electricity used for other things, I wouldn't look for subs in this series.

Their are a number of ways to build a self propelled torpedo (as opposed to a spar torpedo or moored torpedo (nee mine), the earliest were compressed air powered (these leave a trail of bubbles behind them and have a relatively short range), batteries were tried next (no wake but a tendency to catch fire), hydrogen peroxide was used to generate steam by decomposition (with an extra kick by adding some alcohol)(minor wake, fire risk, drunk sailors...), compressed oxygen was used with alcohol or petrol in combustion engines (long range (40km), minor wake) and finally solid fuel rockets (serious wake, seriously fast, probably the only torpedo faster than an aircraft).
All bar batteries possible under the proscriptions detailed to date, and pro's - all cause massive underwater damage, con's - they are well suited to a weaker force over a stronger one, torpedo boats and shore mounted launchers can kill a capitol ship easily (submarines are an extension of the torpedo boat concept with a further reduction in visible signature). Countering them requires dedicated torpedo boat destroyers - or what we now call just destroyers - fast agile ships with medium caliber (20 - 40mm) rapid fire guns.

Nuclear submarines without electricity are possible - pneumatic reactor controls are entirely possible but as designing the reactor requires a knowledge of radiation which came from electrical experiments then I would consider this unlikely. Hydrogen Peroxide powered submarines on the other hand are entirely possible but of questionable necessity for a nation that has maritime superiority (one of the reasons England was reluctant to adopt the technology).

Tenshinai wrote:

BTW Big Lizzie is very heavily built, it is almost twice the weight of a WWI tank empty (42 tons vs 28 tons), moved at 1/10 the speed (1 mile per hour) and its 1/2" to 1" steel plate chassis would be bullet proof to small arms fire (better if the mild steel was replaced with manganese steel) (she also carried 6 months of fuel in the chassis so its effectively a big fuel tank as are its trailers).

Wether it´s bulletproof or not is irrelevant when there isn´t enough of it to protect people using it.

This presents the possibility of tracked supply vehicles and engineer support vehicles (i.e. Bulldozers)if not tracked tanks (but it would be a brave infantry man who would stand in a firing line with a musket with an armored steam engine coming at him).

Oh yes, you have to extremely brave to wait half a day for it to arrive...
And of course no artillery will be aimed at it in the meantime.

Two of them with a wire rope or anchor chain between them would see to most Napoleonic military formations (and forests).

Guess why noone ever did that for real? Doesn´t work that way.

Up the engine power to a hundred horse and the speed capability on good roads rises fast - at 10 mph you are faster than horses over long distances, at 20 mph you are faster than horses over short distances, an armored steam powered bulldozer could rip defensive trenches to ribbons and bury the occupants - without armor piercing ammunition 1" of armor would shrug off cannon balls with ease. Suddenly state of the art artillery becomes scrap metal. Rifled field guns with hydraulic recoil systems become essential.

AirTech wrote:Their are a number of ways to build a self propelled torpedo (as opposed to a spar torpedo or moored torpedo (nee mine), the earliest were compressed air powered (these leave a trail of bubbles behind them and have a relatively short range)

For clarity´s sake, there were both torpedoes powered by compressed air AND powered by steam created by using compressed air.
Both generally left very noticeable trails of bubbles(though there were some ideas to mitigate it).

AirTech wrote:batteries were tried next (no wake but a tendency to catch fire)

Batterypowered were generally among the most reliable and safe. But it took a long time for them to reach high performance and range.

AirTech wrote:hydrogen peroxide was used to generate steam by decomposition (with an extra kick by adding some alcohol)(minor wake, fire risk, drunk sailors...)

Severe risk of fires. The Germans also tested using it to power submarines but soon dumped it because it was much too dangerous.

AirTech wrote:compressed oxygen was used with alcohol or petrol in combustion engines (long range (40km), minor wake)

The most wellknown using pure oxygen is the Japanese so called Long Lance, it used a steam engine, not combustion engine and was effectively wakeless.

However the use of (nearly) pure oxygen brings its own problems, the Type 93 and it´s variants had to be started using a small tank of regular air, as starting it on oxygen usually caused explosions.

If the internals of any part where oxygen would go before the heater were dirty or had even a tiny oil stain, explosion.

Also, all ships equipped with them had to have their own equipment for generating pure oxygen. And if a ship with these torpedoes was unlucky and took damage in the wrong place, *ka-bloooey*.

So, very good but also problematic and dangerous.

AirTech wrote:All bar batteries possible under the proscriptions detailed to date

Making enough pure oxygen easily enough might be hard without electricity.

AirTech wrote:Nuclear submarines without electricity are possible - pneumatic reactor controls are entirely possible but as designing the reactor requires a knowledge of radiation which came from electrical experiments then I would consider this unlikely.

And not something to recommend.

AirTech wrote:Hydrogen Peroxide powered submarines on the other hand are entirely possible but of questionable necessity for a nation that has maritime superiority (one of the reasons England was reluctant to adopt the technology).

And far too volatile!

AirTech wrote:without armor piercing ammunition 1" of armor would shrug off cannon balls with ease. Suddenly state of the art artillery becomes scrap metal. Rifled field guns with hydraulic recoil systems become essential.

Uh no. For comparison, the CSS Virginia had 4 inches of armour on the casemate, and it took a severe beating in its fight with the Monitor, which had EIGHT inches of armour for the gun turret.

While both sides used mostly rifled guns, Virginia took damage from smoothbores with round ball munitions as well. The much more heavily armored Monitor did not. But it didn´t have less than 3 inches of belt armour, while Virginia had as little as 1 inch, and if it had had just that in general, the CSS Virginia could definitely have been sunk by even just the regular oldstyle cannons.

1 inch will be totally bulletproof and resist light stuff like 3 pounder cannons very well.
But even lighter artillery will quickly wear down such light armour. Especially when it´s going to be silly easy to hit.

AirTech wrote:Up the engine power to a hundred horse and the speed capability on good roads rises fast - at 10 mph you are faster than horses over long distances, at 20 mph you are faster than horses over short distances, an armored steam powered bulldozer could rip defensive trenches to ribbons and bury the occupants

20 mph?

You are NOT getting this:
http://www.currell.net/models/ironclad.htm
to go 20 mph. With useful weapons and armour, you are extremely unlikely to EVER get it moving at 10mph. Much less get it moving at that speed longterm.

Just the length of that thing alone makes it unlikely to be able to move on anything but roads. Wide and flat roads.

And moving fast? Sure, just double the weight of the suspension and you might manage it. Except of course you would have to use the whole damn thing´s internal space for engine power to manage anything called speedy.

From that land ironclad, expect human walking speed. If you can make it move at all that is.

There´s good reason steam vehicles quickly lost the competition everywhere but on railroads, where steampower is at its most useful.

AirTech wrote:Nuclear submarines without electricity are possible - pneumatic reactor controls are entirely possible but as designing the reactor requires a knowledge of radiation which came from electrical experiments then I would consider this unlikely. Hydrogen Peroxide powered submarines on the other hand are entirely possible but of questionable necessity for a nation that has maritime superiority (one of the reasons England was reluctant to adopt the technology).

Nuclear submarines without electricity are NOT possible because you could not control the reactor. You could not control the reactor because all of the neutron detectors use electricity and if you don't know how many neutrons the reactor is producing, you don't know if the reactor is sub-critical, critical or super-critical. Not a good idea.