1950s Military Doctrine and Technology Without World War II

Delta Force

Banned
Thank you for all of your replies to this, it is proving very helpful in developing the geopolitical and military aspects of this alternate history. A few of the recommendations put forth are quite interesting, with regards to arms control. I was thinking that there would be no naval treaty after the war because conditions would be so favorable for Germany and its allies. The Austrians only have to worry about France for control of the Mediterranean (Austria, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire being tied together in alliance by the Berlin-Baghdad Railway), and Germany only has to worry about the Royal Navy, at least immediately post-war.

If a treaty were to be signed, what would it look like? Would the British Empire and Germany be tied for first place, with France and Austria tied for second, or would Germany let the British Empire have a larger navy due to its greater overseas commitments?
 
Battleships would have remained the Queens of the sea, missle research would begin in the early 50's and finished by the end of the decade, nuclear propulsion about five years behind that, which would result in BBGN's or people realizing that you can have a higher "broadside" of missiles with an aircraft carrier. Personally, I'd hope for the former:D.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would something like this work for the naval treaty? The reason why a battlecruiser is defined as something with a speed no less than 25 knots is to allow for battleships to be faster than 25 knots. This means that fast battleships are possible and will not count against battlecruiser tonnage. At the same time, a power cannot just go using the battlecruiser category to make ships with slightly smaller armament and heavy armor.

The high tonnage and firepower limits for something to be considered a battleship and battlecruiser is intended to allow for a common theme in naval fiction, the light battleship/battlecruiser. Allowing for them to be unlimited may cause problems because I do want to disrupt ship construction too much past the treaty cruiser. I just want bigger battleships, battlecruisers to be around, and a few large heavy cruisers (think Alaska class) to be around.

Nomenclature might be a bit of an issue, since if most heavy cruisers are treaty cruisers, something Alaska class sized is more of a tiny battlecruiser (I mean an Iowa against the Dreadnought would make the Dreadnought seem more like a light battleship or a large cruiser, and the relative difference is quite similar between an Alaska and a treaty cruiser). Would it make sense to simply redefine things? The postwar battleship combined the high speed of the battlecruiser with the armor and armament of a battleship due to technological advances, creating the fast battleship. Would it make sense to call a battlecruiser a fast battleship, the slower battleships that were still built post-war battleships, and the Alaska class sized ships battlecruisers? Or would it make more sense to call the Alaska class sized ships light battlecruisers, super heavy cruisers, or just plain heavy cruisers?

Stockholm Naval Treaty

Battleships
Battleships (defined as a ship with a standard tonnage greater than 27,500 tons and an armament of 13.5 inches or greater) are limited to a standard tonnage of no more than 40,000 tons, with an armament no greater than 16.5 inches*. No ships with a tonnage or armament exceeding the above limits are to be constructed, sold, or delivered to a foreign power, and all ships built for foreign customers or on speculation must be announced to treaty signatories within at least 30 days of the ships being laid down. Ships may exceed their tonnage limit by 10% in future overhauls, with such additions taking place no less than 15 years after entering service and not counting against tonnage limits.

*Exceptions: Signatories may field no more than two ships with a tonnage no greater than 50,000 tons and an armament no greater than 18 inches.

Battleship Tonnage Limits:
Austria: 180,000 tons
France: 180,000 tons
Germany: 500,000 tons
British Empire (Australasia, Canada, Great Britain): 500,000 tons

Battlecruisers
Battlecruisers (defined as a ship with a standard tonnage greater than 27,500 tons, an armament of 12 inches or greater, and a top speed no less than 25 knots) are limited to a standard tonnage of no more than 40,000 tons, with an armament no greater than 15 inches, and a top speed no less than 25 knots*. No ships with a tonnage or armament exceeding the above limits are to be constructed, sold, or delivered to a foreign power, and all ships built for foreign customers or on speculation must be announced to treaty signatories within at least 30 days of the ships being laid down. Ships may exceed their tonnage limit by 10% in future overhauls, with such additions taking place no less than 15 years after entering service and not counting against tonnage limits.

*Exceptions: Signatories may field no more than two ships with a tonnage no greater than 50,000 tons, an armament no greater than 16.5 inches, and a top speed no less than 25 knots.

Battlecruiser Tonnage Limits:
Austria: 100,000 tons
France: 100,000 tons
Germany: 260,000 tons
British Empire (Australasia, Canada, Great Britain): 260,000 tons
 
Would something like this work for the naval treaty? The reason why a battlecruiser is defined as something with a speed no less than 25 knots is to allow for battleships to be faster than 25 knots. This means that fast battleships are possible and will not count against battlecruiser tonnage. At the same time, a power cannot just go using the battlecruiser category to make ships with slightly smaller armament and heavy armor.

The high tonnage and firepower limits for something to be considered a battleship and battlecruiser is intended to allow for a common theme in naval fiction, the light battleship/battlecruiser. Allowing for them to be unlimited may cause problems because I do want to disrupt ship construction too much past the treaty cruiser. I just want bigger battleships, battlecruisers to be around, and a few large heavy cruisers (think Alaska class) to be around.

Nomenclature might be a bit of an issue, since if most heavy cruisers are treaty cruisers, something Alaska class sized is more of a tiny battlecruiser (I mean an Iowa against the Dreadnought would make the Dreadnought seem more like a light battleship or a large cruiser, and the relative difference is quite similar between an Alaska and a treaty cruiser). Would it make sense to simply redefine things? The postwar battleship combined the high speed of the battlecruiser with the armor and armament of a battleship due to technological advances, creating the fast battleship. Would it make sense to call a battlecruiser a fast battleship, the slower battleships that were still built post-war battleships, and the Alaska class sized ships battlecruisers? Or would it make more sense to call the Alaska class sized ships light battlecruisers, super heavy cruisers, or just plain heavy cruisers?
The treaty looks good, but you're going to want to include the Japanese and possible other smaller signatories. Also, we may get lucky and no form of the Alaskas will not be built in this scenario. In this Scenario, it would be an oversized light battlecruiser.
 
1. How is there a united Ireland?

2. How did the Ottoman Empire survive Arab nationalism, and even expand? :confused:

3. Ditto for the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

4. What about Indian independence?
 

Delta Force

Banned
1. How is there a united Ireland?

2. How did the Ottoman Empire survive Arab nationalism, and even expand? :confused:

3. Ditto for the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

4. What about Indian independence?

1. I agree with the poster who pointed out its unlikelihood and will include Northern Ireland as part of the UK. I thought it might exist as an unstable country with a lot of internal issues, but I have been convinced otherwise.

2. The Ottomans did not expand. British troops were withdrawn from Egypt post-war (Egypt was always recognized as being Ottoman) and the Ottomans were given back Libya post-war. Haven't figured out how to avoid the issues of Arab nationalism ripping apart the empire yet though.

3. I suppose you mean how the Empire survived Slavic nationalism in this case? Well, the Empire has some major internal problems of its own with the end of the war. The only expansion of the Empire that has occurred is the annexation of Montenegro (and gaining Malta, Somalia, and Middle Eastern territories).

4. It is moving there, but not there yet. The Empire has undergone a slight reorganization in the game timeline to better defend its holdings. Canada and Australasia both play key roles in imperial defense in the Americas and Pacific (respectively). They pretty much have to, with the United States and United Kingdom not on the best of terms and the Japanese being very powerful in the region without the United States to counter them. The defense of India is key to British security because with the Berlin-Baghdad up and running making competition for Chinese markets easier, they need to have at least one market they dominate.

I was actually thinking of having a separate category for Pacific only ships in the arms treaty because the Japanese represent a major threat to both the Germans and the UK. Germany because it could cut it off from Chinese markets, and the UK because it threatens its holdings in the area greatly (as well as Chinese markets).
 
2. The Ottomans did not expand. British troops were withdrawn from Egypt post-war (Egypt was always recognized as being Ottoman) and the Ottomans were given back Libya post-war. Haven't figured out how to avoid the issues of Arab nationalism ripping apart the empire yet though.
Bull. Crap. The Suez is an important trade link to the Far East, there is no way in hell Britain is going to surrender it peacefully.

3. I suppose you mean how the Empire survived Slavic nationalism in this case? Well, the Empire has some major internal problems of its own with the end of the war. The only expansion of the Empire that has occurred is the annexation of Montenegro (and gaining Malta, Somalia, and Middle Eastern territories).
Montenegro maybe, but you're asking me a lot if you expect me to believe that dear old Wilhelm will cede them anything they can take for themselves, especially something that AHE has not a chance in hell of actually holding.

4. It is moving there, but not there yet. The Empire has undergone a slight reorganization in the game timeline to better defend its holdings. Canada and Australasia both play key roles in imperial defense in the Americas and Pacific (respectively). They pretty much have to, with the United States and United Kingdom not on the best of terms and the Japanese being very powerful in the region without the United States to counter them. The defense of India is key to British security because with the Berlin-Baghdad up and running making competition for Chinese markets easier, they need to have at least one market they dominate.
Hence my significant doubt over Britain ceding Egypt to anyone who can't take it by force.

I've also yet to hear an explanation for why a Germany that can dictate terms to the French allows to keep Corsica and Italy Sardinia, and why Belgium and the Netherlands are still separate.
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
Bull. Crap. The Suez is an important trade link to the Far East, there is no way in hell Britain is going to surrender it peacefully.

The Suez Canal was not withdrawn from, just the rest of Egypt, like the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty.

Montenegro maybe, but you're asking me a lot if you expect me to believe that dear old Wilhelm will cede them anything they can take for themselves, especially something that AHE has not a chance in hell of actually holding.

The Austro-Hungarians greatly need a base outside the Adriatic. Malta, Somalia, and the Middle Eastern territories the Austro-Hungarians get are small prizes compared to what the Germans pick up. They can certainly hold the ground, and with Italy defeated and new ports outside the Adriatic the Austro-Hungarians will be building a stronger high seas fleet soon as it is. They are not a land based autarky power quite as much.

I've also yet to hear an explanation for why a Germany that can dictate terms to the French allows to keep Corsica and Italy Sardinia, and why Belgium and the Netherlands are still separate.

Is that a joke or something? Normally changing the status quo needs explanation, not the other way around.
 
The Suez Canal was not withdrawn from, just the rest of Egypt, like the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty.
In 1936 there was no powerful neighbour next-door.

Is that a joke or something? Normally changing the status quo needs explanation, not the other way around.
If Germany is in a position to dictate terms to the allies, then they have all the explanation they need.
 
Some technology might be less advanced but some might actually arrive sooner.


Long range passenger planes were delayed by WWII. Pressurized planes were already underdevelopment in the late 1930s. Lockheed constellation would have seen more adoption. A cargo plane that could fly 300 mph would likely have encouraged faster fighters and bombers. The super connie had a max speed of 330 mph.

The introduction of frozen foods and television might have come sooner. So we might see tv dinners in the 1940s :). Also television would be around sooner.

Computers may have originated elsewhere without the war, Konrad Zuse was already hard at work on his computers.

Even without world war II, the spanish civil war still happens and Japan still invades china.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I have revised the Stockholm Naval Treaty a bit more. Thoughts on it thus far?

Stockholm Naval Treaty

Battleships
Battleships (defined as a ship with a standard tonnage greater than 27,500 tons and an armament of 11 inches or greater) are limited to a standard tonnage of no more than 40,000 tons, with an armament no greater than 16.5 inches*. No ships with a tonnage or armament exceeding the above limits are to be constructed, sold, or delivered to a foreign power, and all ships built for foreign customers or on speculation must be announced to treaty signatories within at least 30 days of the ships being laid down. Ships may exceed their tonnage limit by 10% in future overhauls, with such additions taking place no less than 15 years after entering service and not counting against tonnage limits.

*Exceptions: Signatories may field no more than two ships with a tonnage no greater than 50,000 tons and an armament no greater than 18 inches.

Battleship Tonnage Limits:
British Empire (Australasia, Canada, Great Britain): 500,000 tons
Germany: 500,000 tons
United States: 340,000 tons
Japan: 340,000 tons
Russia: 260,000 tons
France: 180,000 tons
Austria: 180,000 tons
Confederacy: 180,000 tons

Battlecruisers
Battlecruisers (defined as a ship with a standard tonnage greater than 27,500 tons, an armament of 11 inches or greater, and a top speed no less than 25 knots) are limited to a standard tonnage of no more than 40,000 tons, with an armament no greater than 16.5 inches, and a top speed no less than 25 knots*. No ships with a tonnage or armament exceeding the above limits are to be constructed, sold, or delivered to a foreign power, and all ships built for foreign customers or on speculation must be announced to treaty signatories within at least 30 days of the ships being laid down. Ships may exceed their tonnage limit by 10% in future overhauls, with such additions taking place no less than 15 years after entering service and not counting against tonnage limits.

*Exceptions: Signatories may field no more than two ships with a tonnage no greater than 50,000 tons, an armament no greater than 16.5 inches, and a top speed no less than 25 knots.

Battlecruiser Tonnage Limits:
British Empire (Australasia, Canada, Great Britain): 260,000 tons
Germany: 260,000 tons
United States: 180,000 tons
Japan: 180,000 tons
Russia: 140,000 tons
France: 100,000 tons
Austria: 100,000 tons
Confederacy: 100,000 tons

Large Heavy Cruisers
Large heavy cruisers are ships with a standard tonnage between 10,000 and 27,500 tons and an armament of 11 inches or greater. All large heavy cruisers built for foreign customers or on speculation must be announced to treaty signatories within at least 30 days of the ships being laid down. Ships may exceed their tonnage limit by 10% in future overhauls, with such additions taking place no less than 15 years after entering service and not counting against tonnage limits.

Large Heavy Cruiser Tonnage Limits:
British Empire (Australasia, Canada, Great Britain): 120,000 tons
Germany: 120,000 tons
United States: 90,000 tons
Japan: 90,000 tons
Russia: 90,000 tons
France: 60,000 tons
Austria: 60,000 tons
Confederacy: 60,000 tons
 
Last edited:
equalizers...

IMVHO, there would be more attempts at coming up with ways for a weaker power to hurt a bigger one. Submarines, rockets, and the like. Is poison gas outlawed? And if it is, are the various nations serious about following that law?

The USA has much less oil; I'd expect it to work on coal to oil technology. For that matter, even without a war, the threat of an oil shortage might inspire the USA, once it has the theory, to be working on nuclear energy--but for power. It won't be finished in the '50's, but it may well be in progress--and if it is a work in progress, then rushing it to make a big BOOM sounds likely.

I'd expect battleships and carriers to be nearly equal in the minds of admirals and politicians by the '50's, as aircraft get better. (Carriers are easier to upgrade, in a way--fly off the main armament and fly a new batch on. not that simple, but once new planes are built, swapping out isn't all that hard.)

Tanks--definately coming, but development should be slower, and withoug combat, some peculiar desogns will be tried for sure.
 
Power sources for the US in this timeline

Natural gas...

V-8 cars and trucks could likely run on natural gas(they have crown vics running on LPG in OTL).

Methanol from coal

Dams..
 

Delta Force

Banned
I was wondering what the colonial garrisons would look like since the Germans have a large colonial empire of their own to protect in this timeline, specifically with regards to mechanization of ground forces and the types of aircraft used.

Are mechanized units likely to be in place in the colonies, or are the African holdings of Germany useless for such forces? Obviously tanks divisions are useless in the Congo, but might there be a few units in Southwest Africa and the savannah regions?

Also, what kinds of aircraft are likely to be used by the air force units in the colonies, in terms of jets or piston engines? I know that in modern times jets have the advantage of being easier to maintain, more reliable, and easier to find fuel for. Might early jets lose out as colonial aircraft by being fuel hogs, having short service life ratings, and actually being less reliable than piston engines? I am unsure if the colonies should have new high performance piston engined aircraft like the Bf-209 variant of the Bf-109 or cheaper types of jet aircraft like the He-162.
 
You know your idea got me thinking I have read something like this before, and I found it.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=173667

Grossdeutschland, and its allies stare each other down after the Great War, and by the 90's due to the high amount of militarization, R and D, have Railguns, Fusion ETC.

So this version of 1950's could see the same thing, due to the fact that Germany won't impose arms restrictions in France, and cannot in the UK and allies, so the development of powerful weaponry and war games can see a massive boost in war games, R and D, and such things like that. All in all, it depends on the luck of the developers, along with how the established clique views it. Tech and Doctrine could stagnate, or it could become even better due to every idea and little advantage being exploited due to countries wanting every advantage they could have in the future.
 

iddt3

Donor
The tonnages for the confederacy are too high and the US too low. Though you've split off California (I think that needs a great deal more justification) and the confederacy, youv'e left them the industrial heartland. The US here still has the potential to be a superpower, except now its a super power with an axe to grind. I also can't see the confederacy being particularly stable or lasting into the 50's. It was a nation built upon the right of its constituent parts to leave. That isn't a good long term basis to work off of.
 
Top