Impact of Alternate History on Military Equipment?

[Gasmask134]

So one thing that I see in a lot of AH media is that whenever in a POD for a war or major political change happens weaponry used stays the same as OTL.

I'll give a hypothetical example, say the Whites win the Russian Civil War in the early 1920's instead of the Bolsheviks, when you reach 1941 does the Russian army of this ATL still develop and adopt things like T-34s, PPSh's, Il-2's, etc?

They don't have to have the same name mind you, just the same weapon system or something incredibly similar.

I always get this nagging feeling that changing the outcome of a war or making it play out much differently would butterfly away at least some of OTL's military equipment.

 

[naraic]

So one thing that I see in a lot of AH media is that whenever in a POD for a war or major political change happens weaponry used stays the same as OTL.

I'll give a hypothetical example, say the Whites win the Russian Civil War in the early 1920's instead of the Bolsheviks, when you reach 1941 does the Russian army of this ATL still develop and adopt things like T-34s, PPSh's, Il-2's, etc?

They don't have to have the same name mind you, just the same weapon system or something incredibly similar.

I always get this nagging feeling that changing the outcome of a war or making it play out much differently would butterfly away at least some of OTL's military equipment.

Yes it would it would also require a huge amount of extra work so a lot of people just shoe horn familiar models into alternate militaries.

 

[Driftless]

There are a couple of really well done and loosely connected aviation advancement threads currently going, where the focus is on earlier technology advancements leading to event change:

WI: NACA Modified P-38 (by Everking)
AHC: A better Allison V1710 (by phx1138)

Both have a very technical core, which speaks to the difficulty of your OP premise. The authors and primary contributors to those threads have some serious engineering chops, so their proposed alternatives have great technical plausibility. I'm a rube when it comes to engines and aeronautics, so I find those threads very educational as well as being highly entertaining reads.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

So one thing that I see in a lot of AH media is that whenever in a POD for a war or major political change happens weaponry used stays the same as OTL.

I'll give a hypothetical example, say the Whites win the Russian Civil War in the early 1920's instead of the Bolsheviks, when you reach 1941 does the Russian army of this ATL still develop and adopt things like T-34s, PPSh's, Il-2's, etc?

They don't have to have the same name mind you, just the same weapon system or something incredibly similar.

I always get this nagging feeling that changing the outcome of a war or making it play out much differently would butterfly away at least some of OTL's military equipment.

Doctrine, experience funding and politics determine procurement decisions. Change one of those and procurement decisions should change

As an example the T-34 only came about because the designer convinced Stalin to let him build a second prototype (A32) with more armor as a universal tank, rather then the planned cavalry tank (A20) it had been intended as. Had the designer less pull, it would not have been the same as OTL. Likewise the PPSh was meant as a cheap low cost SMG, if White Russian Army is better funded, no need for a cheap alternative. The Il-2 was a result of Soviet Frontal aviation identifying a need for an armored ground attack plane, had the Soviets only one airforces rather than two, VVS and PVO, funding priorities might have been different

Really military equipment should change a lot more than people see it do in most AH that isn't gear focused, names on the otherhand can stay the same pretty easy, good names get reused a lot

 

[Gasmask134]

Doctrine, experience funding and politics determine procurement decisions. Change one of those and procurement decisions should change

As an example the T-34 only came about because the designer convinced Stalin to let him build a second prototype (A32) with more armor as a universal tank, rather then the planned cavalry tank (A20) it had been intended as. Had the designer less pull, it would not have been the same as OTL. Likewise the PPSh was meant as a cheap low cost SMG, if White Russian Army is better funded, no need for a cheap alternative. The Il-2 was a result of Soviet Frontal aviation identifying a need for an armored ground attack plane, had the Soviets only one airforces rather than two, VVS and PVO, funding priorities might have been different

Really military equipment should change a lot more than people see it do in most AH that isn't gear focused, names on the otherhand can stay the same pretty easy, good names get reused a lot

Yeah that was what I was kind of thinking, without the OTL previous experiences armies will have differing doctrine and thus need different equipment.

I could also see a new design that worked well enough in OTL doing poorly in ATL and so there is less emphasis on that design in the future. Like perhaps early tanks and armored vehicles are less impressive and no one puts too much emphasis in them later on.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Yeah that was what I was kind of thinking, without the OTL previous experiences armies will have differing doctrine and thus need different equipment.

I could also see a new design that worked well enough in OTL doing poorly in ATL and so there is less emphasis on that design in the future. Like perhaps early tanks and armored vehicles are less impressive and no one puts too much emphasis in them later on.

Eh that's one of those things that if it is a good idea people will keep trying it, and the niche they fill would still exist and could stand to be filled. You could have them play less of a role, but if circumstances are the same there will be pressure to do like OTL. If circumstances are different, more low intensity fighting, or a naval race eating up funds, then having a reduced role could make sense

 

[Gasmask134]

Eh that's one of those things that if it is a good idea people will keep trying it, and the niche they fill would still exist and could stand to be filled. You could have them play less of a role, but if circumstances are the same there will be pressure to do like OTL. If circumstances are different, more low intensity fighting, or a naval race eating up funds, then having a reduced role could make sense

Yeah, I was just trying to think of an idea of something, thinking about it tanks seem like they'd be seen as useful in idea alone. After all, Michelangelo designed something kinda like one.

Perhaps what kind of tanks get used and how they are used would be a better example.

 

[KuboCaskett]

For me the military hardware aspect being different in various TLs makes them all the more interesting, especially those concerning Cold Wars continuing past 1991.

 

[Gasmask134]

For me the military hardware aspect being different in various TLs makes them all the more interesting, especially those concerning Cold Wars continuing past 1991.

Fully agree, if it is done enough the situation gets this alien but yet familiar feel.

It's interesting watching a world war two where the French are still wearing adrian helmets but carrying completely different firearms.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Fully agree, if it is done enough the situation gets this alien but yet familiar feel.

It's interesting watching a world war two where the French are still wearing adrian helmets but carrying completely different firearms.

Me, I like to speculate on how the military hardware would develop in a world where the cold war stays mild or at least is heavily onesided towards either of the two superpowers, especially in a TL where the US wins the Korean War.

 

[cra0422]

Here's my idea: the US recognizes the independence of Vietnam from France after WWII. This allows America to avoid having to fight a war in Vietnam and thus has $120 billion dollars to spend on its defense budget in the 1960s-70s. I imagine that military civilian technology would be at least a generation or two more advanced than what it is today.

 

[Michele]

Here's my idea: the US recognizes the independence of Vietnam from France after WWII.

The USA had no problem with the Vietnamese being independent from the French, come 1954. They just supported their own flavor of Vietnamese independent government.

 

[Insider]

On one hand every design is a result of hours of work, stupid ideas that work in practice, bad ideas that worked on paper, meetings, agreements, politics, and in case of military, the perceived military capability of enemy. Had one of these changed, the complete product would be different.

On the other, every design has to contend with the same laws of physics, the same battle damage, the same rough handling by badly trained personnel. Unless something radically different, all these machines would look more or less the same.

On the third hand... Some designs do change for sure. Perhaps you could even go as far as to make an alternate military, but usually limit yourself to one force (which is no mean feat by itself), while as mentioned shoehorn the rest. Or equip the enemy forces with designs that ended on real life drawing boards and as prototypes. I call the reason "conservation of writing momentum". The focal point are your readers. Say that you wrote an alternate history fiction, how does your alt-british, and more or less ingenious Hawker Hobby compares to TTL fighters? Does it gives the pilot an advantage and why? People would ask how it compares to what they know. How it would fare against Zero, and how against P-51?

 

[riggerrob]

OTL Germany lost both World Wars and was forced to scrap most of her military hardware twice. With empty armouries, Nazi Germany was free to develop and field radical new weapons: helmets, P-38 pistols, MP40 submachineguns, MG34 machineguns, a variety of revolutionary tanks, etc.

ATL if Germany won - or stalemated - WW2, they could sell billions of dollars of those weapons to Third World armies. 7.92mm would become the dominant infantry ammo. Third World air forces would rush to buy Me 262 or its younger brother.

 

[MichaelWest]

Absolutely but its daunting to design and develop all new hardware. Conceptually it may be easy to simply assume that an alternate Army adopts a new semi-automatic rifle contemporary to the M1 Garand and works like it without actually designing it fully. You can think how it might be if a particular aircraft had never happened and how others that existed would fill its role. But unless you are actually delving into the details, war gaming the differences, then I think it is fascinating but not strictly needed. Sometimes hand waiving gets us past the steep climbs that are more about background.

The US Army had the very good M1903 rifle before the Garand and the BAR was a very serviceable LMG (SAW) paired with the M1903. The .30 M1919 LMG was again a good weapon at the next echelon in support. Then the Germans introduce the MG34 a GPMG filling both the BAR and M1919's roles but do not build a Garand. One can look to other designs then and think what if the USA developed something like the MG34 rather than soldier on with the BAR and what if the Germans had adopted a true semi-automatic like the Garand to compliment the MG34? One needs to look at the designers, the political/procurement, the doctrine and personalities involved to establish how it might have happened. Any fan of a particular era or weapon will challenge you and debate the multitude of choices as well as the conclusion, all very interesting, but without knowing what the American LMG actually looks like or the German semi-auto Rifle we can think further on how it affects the Army, its battles and its evolution. For example if Germany adopted a Garand-like rifle it may not have gotten to the Sturmgewehr. If the USA had retired the BAR and M1919 in the Infantry for an MG34 clone we can think about how the organization of the squad itself or platoon might change, whether it performs better at small unit level, and so on.

So unless the aim is research and proffer how a particular item could exist I am okay with using concepts to further a bigger discussion on effects. I just think one should be aware that as any ATL proceeds then it may be rightfully debated that something should not exist as much as how it might. No WW2? The French might have M26 "Adrian" helmets and the MAS 36 rifles through the 1960s. The Mustang may never have existed. Germans win WW1? The MG34 might still exist but a whole chain of different aircraft get developed through the 1920s and 1930s to perhaps alter very much what the Me109 looks like. Fokker stays in Germany and keeps designing or Von Braun never builds rockets because Germany pursues the long ranger heavy bombers instead. Changes in the past should alter the future more than just shifting our favorites around or getting us a better set of gear. How long might the Infantry versus Cavalry (Cruiser) theory of tanks held on without real experience? A Britain that never goes to war with an alternate Germany might pursue light tanks for colonial police actions and drop designing anything else. Imagine a British Army today that never grew beyond around 4-6 professional divisions or fought anything but a colonial action post-1918? That is the challenge.

 

[Gasmask134]

snip

Fortunately seeing OTL stuff in an ATL isn't immersion breaking for me and I can understand why people would just use OTL equipment in a TL as it probably doesn't have that big of an impact on the story.

I just think it's an interesting thought experiment in very hard alternate history, it would be interesting to see a TL that focuses less on a big world shattering events and more on an army's new equipment and how different that military is compared to OTL.

 

[Draconis]

So one thing that I see in a lot of AH media is that whenever in a POD for a war or major political change happens weaponry used stays the same as OTL.

I'll give a hypothetical example, say the Whites win the Russian Civil War in the early 1920's instead of the Bolsheviks, when you reach 1941 does the Russian army of this ATL still develop and adopt things like T-34s, PPSh's, Il-2's, etc?

They don't have to have the same name mind you, just the same weapon system or something incredibly similar.

I always get this nagging feeling that changing the outcome of a war or making it play out much differently would butterfly away at least some of OTL's military equipment.

But why would a different outcome of any particular war affect the overall worldwide level and rate of technological advancement that occurred through the Twentieth Century? Because you won't see any world beating improvements in military hardware unless there are some timely and significant technological breakthroughs before hand. Would this be dependent on who won what war? Otherwise the equipment used in an ATL should be a similar variation as to our TL.

 

[Gasmask134]

But why would a different outcome of any particular war affect the overall worldwide level and rate of technological advancement that occurred through the Twentieth Century? Because you won't see any world beating improvements in military hardware unless there are some timely and significant technological breakthroughs before hand. Would this be dependent on who won what war? Otherwise the equipment used in an ATL should be a similar variation as to our TL.

I wasn't trying to imply technological advancement from one side winning a war, what I meant was "would it be the same equipment?"

Using the example I presented would a White army that had beaten the Reds in the 20s develop their equipment along the same path as the USSR (Russia in ATL) did in OTL. Which is something you see in some AH media, where everyone still has the same equipment as OTL for alternate WWII despite a PoD long before it.

I'm talking about the existence of something like a T-34 tank (or a T-34 under a different name like idk, B-40 tank, but still the same design) not that the Whites would be fielding T-80s in 1941.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

But why would a different outcome of any particular war affect the overall worldwide level and rate of technological advancement that occurred through the Twentieth Century? Because you won't see any world beating improvements in military hardware unless there are some timely and significant technological breakthroughs before hand. Would this be dependent on who won what war? Otherwise the equipment used in an ATL should be a similar variation as to our TL.

Not neccesarily. Yes worldwide tech level would be the same. But doctrine, political issues and available funding would change things

For example in a TL with higher budgets one would often see more specialized equipment being built, say an Interceptor, Dogfighter and Light Bomber, rather than just a Fighter-Bomber in a TL with more compressed budgets. Or if you don't have a continent sized nation with no potential land based enemies nearby, then something like a Supercarrier is unlikely to exist, and thus specialized heavy AShMs, and in turn specialized carrier based interceptors like the F-14 being likely nonexistent as well. Or say WWI ends indecisively, well that probably means no WNT, and the battleship race keeps going and they grow in size during the 20's to the point where by 1940 something like Yamato is the norm rather than the outlier. Or say you have a world where the great powers are more willing to take extreme measures in COIN, that probably means specialized equipment for fighting insurgencies, like the MRAPs don't exist. Or Gas gets used post WWI in mass amounts, and everybody starts designing equipment on the assumption that you will have to be fighting in full CBRN protection

Basically it isn't just about the tech level

 

[Draconis]

I wasn't trying to imply technological advancement from one side winning a war, what I meant was "would it be the same equipment?"

Using the example I presented would a White army that had beaten the Reds in the 20s develop their equipment along the same path as the USSR (Russia in ATL) did in OTL. Which is something you see in some AH media, where everyone still has the same equipment as OTL for alternate WWII despite a PoD long before it.

I'm talking about the existence of something like a T-34 tank (or a T-34 under a different name like idk, B-40 tank) not that the Whites would be fielding T-80s in 1941.

Ha ha I like that. T-80s in 1941. But the thing is only small largely unimportant variations in design and engineering would be possible if the background level of technology is unchanged. So unless the POD brings a breakthrough than you would expect to see roughly similar equipment.

What I'm asserting is that the technology is the main driver of change.