[quote=@Keyguyperson]
[@Dinh AaronMk]

Other nations have mentioned the use of ironclads, and as for the steam tanks, the US Army experimented with them. As often as we consider steam power the realm of ships and trains, for a time, it isn't nearly as impractical as we tend to think. Multiple early cars were steam-powered, and of course there's the Army experiments I mentioned. In fact, there was a modern steam car that reached 140 or so mp/h, but it used propane and not coal, because coal is a really terrible power source. Also it looks like an SR-71.

Just for reference:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_tank[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Wheel_Tank[/url]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1209015/Success-British-steam-supercar-smashes-100-year-old-land-speed-record.html[/url]

It's worth noting that the tracked one used steam because it had a flamethrower on it, because everyone in 1918 was presumably a massive fan of steampunk.
[/quote]

The thing with the tanks is that you probably didn't read what ended the projects. Both of them were ended early because they couldn't be maneuvered or were incredibly vulnerable.

The Steam Tank America for instance broke down in the middle of a simple parade and it came out as being vulnerable in the field during the First World War and had to be withdrawn before something happened and killed the crew. Its reservoirs and heating components too were too large and there was massive cooling problems.

The steam car too is a product of modern engineering with the network of modern science in place, which I highly doubt would survive the apocalypse. It's a case of mismatched priorities.