DBWI: Conqueror MBT vs Panzer XII?

Landshark

As we all know this never happened as the Third Reich went out with a whimper rather than a bang, but what if the Cold War had gone hot during the 1980's? Would the German tanks have compared to contemporary WEU tanks like the Conqueror and Char-77 or Soviet tanks like the T-79? As we now know the quality of German technology began to suffer during the 1960's and 70's as the Nazi regime's repression increased and more and more restrictions were placed on research, and the post-Nazi Bundeswehr hasn't really had the funds to maintain it's equipment in top notch condition.

((Please, no ridiculous Maus-like super tanks here. There are reasons they were never built by anyone other than that lunatic Hitler))
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Well, by then tanks were coming obsolete with more emphasis on MRLS because of the better links with drone aircraft for spotting. However, a tank rush wouldn't be taken out by MRLS alone, and I think that everyone learned the lessons of Blitzkrieg, so stationary defences wouldn't be so wasteful, mobile defences more emphasized. However without the Hwacha-class Imperial Japanese MRLS designs stolen by the Canadian spy Pierre Elliot Trudeau the MRLS today wouldn't be able to take out a modern tank, they'd be just be normal artillery.
 

Landshark

mmmeee0 said:
Well, by then tanks were coming obsolete with more emphasis on MRLS because of the better links with drone aircraft for spotting. However, a tank rush wouldn't be taken out by MRLS alone, and I think that everyone learned the lessons of Blitzkrieg, so stationary defences wouldn't be so wasteful, mobile defences more emphasized. However without the Hwacha-class Imperial Japanese MRLS designs stolen by the Canadian spy Pierre Elliot Trudeau the MRLS today wouldn't be able to take out a modern tank, they'd be just be normal artillery.
Click to expand...

People have been saying the tank is obsolete since the 1950's, either because of the A-Bomb, or anti-tank missile or helicopter gunships but they're still with us. Also a great deal depends on when this hypothetical war takes place. In the early 80's drone technology and ATMRLS systems were in their infrantry, just like smart bombs. By the late 80's though all three weapons were much more developed and much more numberous.
 

Hades

However, President Reagan was getting the military to work on mechs as the cold war drew on. Fortunately, that wasn't necessary.

However, the Conqueror was a solid make that could hold its own against the Panzer.
 

M79

We all remember how partisans were able to hold off the army of the "Thousand Year Reich" for days in Hungary not long after the war and for weeks during the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While the E-75/Panzer IX had an impressive 105mm cannon I doubt the upgrade to 120mm would make much of a difference. Their armor was impressive, but as during the war, German tanks are more akin to BMWs than the more rugged and more eailsy maintained Patton II or T-80 counterparts. Remember that at Debrecen a small aprtisan group of 25 people were able to knock out over a dozen Panzer IXs then picked off the repairmen to keep that force held down for over two weeks. It took at least five seperate runs from ME 235s to take out those guys, so I'm not so sure how effective the newer Panzers would be since they are no more easily maintained. Also remember the Byelorussia "border incident" in 1978 when thirty Panzer XIs were knocked out by twenty T-80s, the Soviets being able to repair their vehicles much more quickly than the Germans could.

All in all I'm not so sure that the Germans could hold the edge on a machine-to-machine basis by 1970, their tactics and combined warfare seemed to work largely due to the precision bombing and missile attacks of the airforce more than the ground pounders.
 

Hades

Landshark said:
There's a POD for you, What If Reagan had watched Star Wars instead of Gundam?
Click to expand...

Man that manga was quite popular. Reagan's time in Japan certainly influenced him, especially his roles in the films.

Among other things of note revealed were that Reagan had advocated railgun and coilgun technology. I mean, it's more feasible than space lasers or whatnot

As well as that 5 months ago former Army Major Amy Goodman on her show The Republic Today was comparing the combat systems of the American Clark, British Conqueror, the Chinese Class K tank and the German Panzer in a computer simulation. The CK was the first to get hit, the Panzer was faster but broke down due to relaibility problems, with the conqueror taking a shot to the treads. While the CK was faster, it lacked armour. The Panzer had better range, but it has electrical problems. The Conqueror had weak tracks and had poor accuracy
 
Last edited:

Hades

M79 said:
We all remember how partisans were able to hold off the army of the "Thousand Year Reich" for days in Hungary not long after the war and for weeks during the "Prague Spring" of 1968. While the E-75/Panzer IX had an impressive 105mm cannon I doubt the upgrade to 120mm would make much of a difference. Their armor was impressive, but as during the war, German tanks are more akin to BMWs than the more rugged and more eailsy maintained Patton II or T-80 counterparts. Remember that at Debrecen a small aprtisan group of 25 people were able to knock out over a dozen Panzer IXs then picked off the repairmen to keep that force held down for over two weeks. It took at least five seperate runs from ME 235s to take out those guys, so I'm not so sure how effective the newer Panzers would be since they are no more easily maintained. Also remember the Byelorussia "border incident" in 1978 when thirty Panzer XIs were knocked out by twenty T-80s, the Soviets being able to repair their vehicles much more quickly than the Germans could.

All in all I'm not so sure that the Germans could hold the edge on a machine-to-machine basis by 1970, their tactics and combined warfare seemed to work largely due to the precision bombing and missile attacks of the airforce more than the ground pounders.
Click to expand...

OOC: This is a TL where the Germans held everything from Alsace-lorraine to the Urals. I don't eally see the USSR lasting long after being defeated.
 

RCAF Brat

Avalon1 said:
OOC: This is a TL where the Germans held everything from Alsace-lorraine to the Urals. I don't eally see the USSR lasting long after being defeated.
Click to expand...

OOC: The POD could be a peace (of exhaustion) in late 1944, in which case Germany would still hold: Most of Poland (conquest); Hungary (ally); Romania (ally); Greece (conquest); Yugoslavia (ally and/or conquest, depends on which part); Bulgaria (ally); Denmark (conquest); and Northern Italy (ally turned conquest). The Western border would be the Rhine, so the Western Allies actually hold part of Germany at this point. The Germans do not hold any Soviet territory at this point.

IC: Given what we now know about the Reich, had there been another war, who'd have marched through Berlin first, the Reds or NATO? And where would their lines have met?
 

Landshark

Avalon1 said:
OOC: This is a TL where the Germans held everything from Alsace-lorraine to the Urals. I don't eally see the USSR lasting long after being defeated.
Click to expand...

((Er, no it isn't. The Soviet Union is mentioned in the OP. I was thinking more of a world where WW2 doesn't get upto speed at all. Germany holds Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland, and has a Warsaw Pact like alliance with Italy, Hungary, Solvakia, Bulgaria and Romania, while facing off against the NATO-like Western European Union and the USSR in a two front Cold War. Also the Conqueror is a British tank, hence the name.))
 

rast

Now, material isn't everything, fighting also is about morale and esprit de corps. From the testing of the Pz XII at Camp de Mourmelon and Salisbury Plains we know that the beasts weren't any better than the Chars-77 and only slightly more mobile and powerful than the Conquerors.
But the Panzerwaffe units were the elite of the German armed forces (after the Waffen-SS had been sacked following the Himmler-Revolt of 53).
Man for man, they were superior in training, experience and morale to the weaklings of the WEU, not to speak of the mass cannon fodder of the Soviets.
 

Landshark

rast said:
Now, material isn't everything, fighting also is about morale and esprit de corps. From the testing of the Pz XII at Camp de Mourmelon and Salisbury Plains we know that the beasts weren't any better than the Chars-77 and only slightly more mobile and powerful than the Conquerors.
But the Panzerwaffe units were the elite of the German armed forces (after the Waffen-SS had been sacked following the Himmler-Revolt of 53).
Man for man, they were superior in training, experience and morale to the weaklings of the WEU, not to speak of the mass cannon fodder of the Soviets.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Not the ubermensch arguement again?

The Wehrmacht's high morale was based more on Nazi propaganda than on reality and outside of smacking around civilians in the Occupied Territories or helping out a few South American dictators hunt down freedom fighters. How does that compare to British and French operations in Africa or Asia or any of Russia's clashes with Japan in Mongolia?
 

rast

What are the bush wars of the British and the jungle campaigns of the French other than chasing around some poor indigenes?
And Mongolia is a glaring example of masses of mass cannon fodder stampeding an army of good quality and sound doctrine - for fear of being executed by the commissars.

You're right about the propaganda, but what counts is what people believe. And they believed they were the best - and trained accordingly. Their training was far superior to anything the WEU or the Commies ever did put up.
 

The Dean

The Conqueror's 32pounder main gun may have been marginally less powerful than the Panzer XII's main armament but it's armour could easily withstand a direct hit from them on the front of the hull or turret.
 

The Red

OOC: The Germans only made 6 new tank types in 40 years?

I doubt the Panzer 12 could have matched the Conqueror tank-to-tank it suffred badly against the Soviet-Israeli armour in the First Iranian with it's so called "invincible" front being pierced by modern American anti-tank rounds.
 
Last edited:

RCAF Brat

rast said:
What are the bush wars of the British and the jungle campaigns of the French other than chasing around some poor indigenes?
And Mongolia is a glaring example of masses of mass cannon fodder stampeding an army of good quality and sound doctrine - for fear of being executed by the commissars.

You're right about the propaganda, but what counts is what people believe. And they believed they were the best - and trained accordingly. Their training was far superior to anything the WEU or the Commies ever did put up.
Click to expand...

So you refer to the Sino-British war over Tibet as the British chasing around a bunch of indigenes? What would you call the Franco-Italian war? You're just jealous because we actually got to fight a real enemy, not some figment of th e Nazi Party's collective imagination.

Only a goose-steeping moron would German military training as superior to that of the Commonwealth. At best it was equal. Though we will never be sure as you haven't actually fought anyone since 1918! And look at how that one ended for you. If you'd started a rematch, we'd have been in the slightly radioactive ruins of Berlin within eight weeks. Unless the Reds got there first, in which case we'd have had to kick them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top