A[n Alternate] History of World War II Armored Vehicles

[ryackov]

A great number of works have been written on the immensity of German armored vehicles. They are impressive machines, mounting large armaments, and thick armor, boasting great propaganda value and struck fear among allied troops. They were also prone to mechanical failure and Germany's situation late in the war led to a deterioration in the quality of manufacture. The complexity of the machines and the rapid introduction of which led to teething issues.
This was in contrast to American armored vehicle research, which possessed an abundance of caution in their design and development, much of which had to deal with scant automotive research in the pre-war era and the long supply lines, which meant that factory technicians wouldn't be on hand to assist in repairs, or any issues with tank components couldn't simply be shipped by rail back to the factory.
The workhorse of the American army was the M4 medium tank, nicknamed General Sherman by the British and her Commonwealth allies. It was an enduring design, serving decades after the war. Dozens of variants were based upon it, particularly the M75 Universal Carrier and the M8 Self Propelled Gun.
The M24 heavy tank, later renamed the M24 medium tank, was a result of Armored Force and Ordnance Department doctrine, that the best tank destroyer is another tank. Arriving in numbers to assist in the breakout of the Seine, it prove decisive in engagements versus German armor if HVAP ammunition was available.

 

[Somua2]

Alternate German paradigm

A good number of BT5/7's served in the Spanish civil war. Quite a number of T-26's were captured. I imagine a number of BT's were as well.

It seems to me that if the Germans looked at the BT's correctly, they could have been impressed. Yes their armor was thin and they had the usual Russian ergonomic limitations, but it's not hard to extrapolate a T-34 out of them.

The German could have foreseen and been inspired by a fast, sloped armored and 75mm =/- medium caliber armed panzer by 1939/40.

 

[bsmart]

A great number of works have been written on the immensity of German armored vehicles. They are impressive machines, mounting large armaments, and thick armor, boasting great propaganda value and struck fear among allied troops. They were also prone to mechanical failure and Germany's situation late in the war led to a deterioration in the quality of manufacture. The complexity of the machines and the rapid introduction of which led to teething issues.
This was in contrast to American armored vehicle research, which possessed an abundance of caution in their design and development, much of which had to deal with scant automotive research in the pre-war era and the long supply lines, which meant that factory technicians wouldn't be on hand to assist in repairs, or any issues with tank components couldn't simply be shipped by rail back to the factory.
The workhorse of the American army was the M4 medium tank, nicknamed General Sherman by the British and her Commonwealth allies. It was an enduring design, serving decades after the war. Dozens of variants were based upon it, particularly the M75 Universal Carrier and the M8 Self Propelled Gun.
The M24 heavy tank, later renamed the M24 medium tank, was a result of Armored Force and Ordnance Department doctrine, that the best tank destroyer is another tank. Arriving in numbers to assist in the breakout of the Seine, it prove decisive in engagements versus German armor if HVAP ammunition was available.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I can't tell if your vehicle designations are supposed to be historical or alternate ones. If Historical you need to do some fact checking because they are generally wrong. If Alternate vehicles I think you need to do a lot more work and fill out the differences and what the POD was

 

[burtledog]

Designations

I am not sure about your designations either.
M4 had the M7 105mm SP, not the M8 75mm which came from the M3/M5 Light tanks. The M4 was used for an APC a few times, but the M75 was a 50 development using the M18 TD as a starting point...(I think).
The M24 was the light tank that replaced the M3/M5
The M26 was the Pershing that attempted to replace the Sherman M4 that had heavy armour and a 90mm gun.

That said. If Germany would have opted for less complex designs in the latter years...someone had a thread on options in Panther development a couple of months ago...it may have been better for Germany and worse for the world.
Grace,
Greg

 

[PaperPanzer]

The M7 Priest wasn't based on the M4 but on the M3 Lee Medium Tank. The M12 Motor Gun Carriage isn't mentioned although that vehicle was the forerunner of most of the post-WW2 SPGs. The M12 was also based on the M3 Lee with a 155mm M1918 gun (very similar to the WW1 155mm French GPF gun). There were only 100 M12s built but they proved to be very useful in NW Europe. They were used to destroy strong points by direct fire and even on (at least one) occasion as a heavy tank destroyer.

Charlie

 

[Vjacheslav Malyshev]

I'll post a better explanation later but, the way German manufactured their tanks meant they couldn't build a very large amount of a smaller tank.

 

[Garrison]

A great number of works have been written on the immensity of German armored vehicles. They are impressive machines, mounting large armaments, and thick armor, boasting great propaganda value and struck fear among allied troops. They were also prone to mechanical failure and Germany's situation late in the war led to a deterioration in the quality of manufacture. The complexity of the machines and the rapid introduction of which led to teething issues.

Well no. Through to 1943 it was largely superior tactics and close co-ordination with the Luftwaffe that gave the Panzer divisions the edge. Their formations were dominated by the Panzer I and II during the early years of the war and they were neither well armoured nor well armed. The Panzer III was easily matched by the British and US tanks it met in the North Africa campaign, never mind the T-34. The Panzer IV when first introduced lacked an anti-tank capability if I recall correctly and was hastily upgraded in response to the T-34 and the tank that sometimes gets forgotten; the KV-1.

The panther and the Tiger were insanely over-complicated and it's questionable whether they were the most effective use of German resources.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Well no. Through to 1943 it was largely superior tactics and close co-ordination with the Luftwaffe that gave the Panzer divisions the edge. Their formations were dominated by the Panzer I and II during the early years of the war and they were neither well armoured nor well armed. The Panzer III was easily matched by the British and US tanks it met in the North Africa campaign, never mind the T-34. The Panzer IV when first introduced lacked an anti-tank capability if I recall correctly and was hastily upgraded in response to the T-34 and the tank that sometimes gets forgotten; the KV-1.

The panther and the Tiger were insanely over-complicated and it's questionable whether they were the most effective use of German resources.

Uh you do know he's writing from an ATL point of view, and not an OTL one right?

 

[Kevin Renner]

For any alternate US armor POD the basic requirement is at the tactical level. The whole "tanks provide infantry support and exploit breakouts was partially flawed. The "tank destroyers fight tanks" was totally flawed

 

[TxCoatl1970]

AIUI Mcnair has to fall downstairs or reassigned to paper-shuffling somewhere a tad more harmless than where he was for US tank doctrine as well as development, procurement and so forth to be significantly different 1942-1944.
He should have gotten the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds with a signed portrait of Adolf as phx suggested in another thread.
By 1944, the Pershing could have been the standard US tank and in adequate numbers with adequate doctrine intergating the lessons of North Africa and the Eastern Front, crushed the Wehrmacht by Christmas 1944.

Another cute thing would be adopting a bazooka in 1943 with real punch that could stop, not just annoy German tanks. It'd have been a great help not just in France but in Korea as well.

The US had a habit of relying on artillery, CAS, and tank destroyers before AT guns and bazookas came into play which was very bad news in the bocage and Ardennes for infantry caught unawares.

On the German side, standardizing around the Panther 1942 and getting it out in quantity to be effective would be a massive boost to the german war effort. HOWEVER- they had other issues- fuel amnd spare parts, as well as ability to field repair tanks instead of sending wrecked tanks back to the factory frex that severely hampered their efforts.

Also they manufactured tons of StuG and other SPGs that were great for defensive campaigns but not terribly helpful in offensive maneuvers.
Every StuG is a chassis and an engine built around a gun that doesn't have the flexibility of a turreted tank.

My argument is, if you're manufacturing a vehicle, make it an effective vehicle.
I'd think the WM'd rather have half-tracks to lug around AT guns, schlep infantry around, and so forth--- which did a lot to improve US and WAllied mobility.
YMMV.