Impact of Alternate History on Military Equipment?

[Cryhavoc101]

The British were so impressed with the Mauser during the Boer war that they were intending to replace the SMLE with a Mauser clone - this replacement did not occur due to WW1

Also the Tank was built as a result of several ideas finding fertile ground on the Western Front

And then the fighter plane and large bomber both came about through necessity

Remove a given TLs analogous WW1 and you pretty much have a situation where the SMLE no longer exists, tanks and Bombers don't exist - not for a time anyway.

SMGs do not get developed - certainly not as quickly as OTL

Horses remain the principle means of carrying a rifleman or dragging a gun cross country - probably for far longer than OTL - and tanks and mechanization is adopted at a far slower rate.

Another example - Roosevelt lives longer - champions the vietnamese peoples desire for independence after WW2 and the whole struggle for Vietnam turns out differently than our TL

No Vietnam war involvement of the US Armed forces - no modernising of the US Military - No M16 rifle?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The British were so impressed with the Mauser during the Boer war that they were intending to replace the SMLE with a Mauser clone - this replacement did not occur due to WW1

Also the Tank was built as a result of several ideas finding fertile ground on the Western Front

And then the fighter plane and large bomber both came about through necessity

Remove a given TLs analogous WW1 and you pretty much have a situation where the SMLE no longer exists, tanks and Bombers don't exist - not for a time anyway.

SMGs do not get developed - certainly not as quickly as OTL

Horses remain the principle means of carrying a rifleman or dragging a gun cross country - probably for far longer than OTL - and tanks and mechanization is adopted at a far slower rate.

Another example - Roosevelt lives longer - champions the vietnamese peoples desire for independence after WW2 and the whole struggle for Vietnam turns out differently than our TL

No Vietnam war involvement of the US Armed forces - no modernising of the US Military - No M16 rifle?

Agree with most but the US was modernizing before Vietnam, hell Vietnam probably hurt the modernization by taking away funds from big ticket items. M-16 was basically intended as a stopgap for the stopgap, as the M-14 was too expensive and the SPIW was having issues, its adoption began in '61 before the US was really involved in Vietnam. What no Vietnam would mean is probably less development of helicopters (especially gunships), the next gen air force fighters of the Big Radar/Big Engine/Big Missile school ala the F-14 rather than energy-maneuverability theory in the F-15/16, and probably no CAS aircraft in the A-10 mold

 

[riggerrob]

A-10 was conceived as a replacement for the piston-powered Douglas AD-1 Skyraider. Skyraiders performed far better than expected during the VN War ...... faaaaaaaar better than supersonic fighter-bombers.
Without that bloody lesson, the USAF would merely have continued developing more and fancier supersonic century-series, jet-powered, fighter-bombers.

 

[Driftless]

I think one of the difficult aspects of this idea is that in history there's a synchronicity of connected developments that need to occur before a technology can come into use. Clear as mud?

For example: No useful rubber tires until the vulcanization process is fully developed.

 

[KuboCaskett]

IIRC, there was a post on a thread about a US victory in the Korean War that an early victory done by the US/SK side by say 1951 or so would retard military development, meaning that jet fighters and missiles might come later into service than they had IOTL. That would leave me to believe that tech on the military front would be slowed down and perhaps more so if the space race is drastically small or nonexistent because of a continuing Stalinist USSR ala Twilight of the Red Tsar, all of this adding up to making TTL technologically behind ours by a decade or so.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

Change the players of World War I and you see a much slower development and exploitation of submarines.

Conversely, if USW knocks the Brits out of the war in 1917 and the Germans secure peace in the chaos, then submarines don't get banned against their most effective user, and they keep building and developing them.

It's rather possible to get a sub arms race rather drastically, and maybe you even see stuff like sub merchant ships of real size get built, especially when someone figures out snorkels.

Another would be the easy to butterfly DeHavilland Mosquito never getting used. The ensuing war teaches that precision bombing is necessary but that bombers need to be even bigger, more powerful, and much more heavily armed to survive fighters.

The concept of an unarmed fast bomber is seen as pointless, especially when jet fighters emerge and there's no way a bomber can be faster.

 

[Wimble Toot]

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.

How and why, considering none of it would have been used in combat?

This butterflies the existence of the AR-15, F-15 and F-16 just for starters.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

but without knowing what... the German semi-auto Rifle we can think further on how it affects the Army

it looks like a g-43 actually,
the germans, soviets, french, belgians, czechs, and swedes all had plans to field semi auto full power rifles in the 30's and 40's that fell through because of either the depression or the war, without that drain on resources it's possible that ww2 would have seen the use of such rifles as standard issue rather than the more limited issue of otl

This butterflies the existence of the AR-15,

No Vietnam war involvement of the US Armed forces - no modernising of the US Military - No M16 rifle?

the ar10 and ar15 were on the market by the late 50's, in fact if the ar10 had been equipped with a steel barrel rather than the composite barrel use in the 1957 rifle trials then it's possible that the ar10 would had been chosen over the m14,

 

[KuboCaskett]

How and why, considering none of it would have been used in combat?

This butterflies the existence of the AR-15, F-15 and F-16 just for starters.

In all honesty I think the lack of a Vietnam War would retard military development in general in regards to the US; though at least they might have more funds for other projects outside of military weaponry, like the Space race.

 

[Wimble Toot]

Though at least they might have more funds for other projects outside of military weaponry, like the Space race.

The Vietnam War was a huge amount of blood and treasure expended, with next to nothing in return, but improving US military procurement would NOT be one it side effects

Without the war to pay for, hitech boondoggles like the XB-70 would be tempting.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Agree with most but the US was modernizing before Vietnam, hell Vietnam probably hurt the modernization by taking away funds from big ticket items. M-16 was basically intended as a stopgap for the stopgap, as the M-14 was too expensive and the SPIW was having issues, its adoption began in '61 before the US was really involved in Vietnam. What no Vietnam would mean is probably less development of helicopters (especially gunships), the next gen air force fighters of the Big Radar/Big Engine/Big Missile school ala the F-14 rather than energy-maneuverability theory in the F-15/16, and probably no CAS aircraft in the A-10 mold

My understanding was that the M14 was not 'found out' until soldier armed with the weapon faced disciplined NVA armed with the AK47 in vietnam early on during the US involvement

Use of the AR15 by special forces generated great praise and the USAF had also tried to replace its M14s and M2 carbines with the weapon in 1960 (the US Gov said no).

Also during this time the US Army loved the M14 despite its even then obvious flaws and had US involvement in vietnam not happened then at best the M16 replaces the M2 Carbine and the M14 soldiers on as the main long rifle - possible for decades unless another long drawn out war shows up the M14

With the 7.62 NATO M14 remaining in service as the principle weapon - I would expect other western nations to retain use of their own 7.62 NATO weapons (FN FAL/SLR/G3) for longer.

Certainly the BVR missile would still be thought of as the superior weapon - but in its defence the early AIM 7 Sparrows were mis-used as some early Blue on Blue air to air kills resulted in some very rigid RoE resulting in US aircraft having to id the target before shooting it down.

This generally brought the US fighter inside the engagement envelope of the Sparrow and subsequently the Sidewinder a much shorter ranged heat seeking missile was massively improved.

Without Vietnam - for good or for worse - I would imagine that BVR missile engagements and associated A/C and equipment would remain the principal thrust of development.

 

[Driftless]

As a general trend, without the hard school of combat, don't you see a lot of solutions that fit pre-conceived notions AND budget, vs anticipation of what's coming up?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

My understanding was that the M14 was not 'found out' until soldier armed with the weapon faced disciplined NVA armed with the AK47 in vietnam early on during the US involvement

Use of the AR15 by special forces generated great praise and the USAF had also tried to replace its M14s and M2 carbines with the weapon in 1960 (the US Gov said no).

Also during this time the US Army loved the M14 despite its even then obvious flaws and had US involvement in vietnam not happened then at best the M16 replaces the M2 Carbine and the M14 soldiers on as the main long rifle - possible for decades unless another long drawn out war shows up the M14

With the 7.62 NATO M14 remaining in service as the principle weapon - I would expect other western nations to retain use of their own 7.62 NATO weapons (FN FAL/SLR/G3) for longer.

I was not talking about any performance shortcomings of the M14, merely that it was difficult and time consuming to manufacture, and it was not entering service as fast as was desired or planned. Even without Vietnam I think that the M16 would still see at least limited service as a service rifle, not just a carbine replacement, if nothing else until the M14 is produced in sufficient numbers to equip every single unit

From what I recall the Army as a whole was divided on the M14, some loved it, some were not enamored of it. As early as '62, before any combat experience with it, there were claims it was not the best. A '62 test claimed it was inferior to the Garand, and by '63 multiple tests had said the AR-15 was better

The really long term plan was that the M14 be replaced with the Special Purpose Individual Weapon, but that whole concept was lacking

 

[Gunnarnz]

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

Is it, though? Militaries can be quite conservative, the mere fact that a technology is available does not mean it'll be taken up and used extensively. Personally, I think that it is perceived need that drives change - that is, if a military thinks they need something they'll adopt it, and the technology involved in it doesn't have a particularly strong effect on whether it is viewed as desirable.

Example: it was technologically possible for decades to equip soldiers with self-loading rifles before it actually happened. Early versions started to be fielded in 1901 with the Mondragon rifle. But it was only in WW2 that they received much attention, and it wasn't until the 1960s that they were commonly used. Technology doesn't seem to have driven the change in that case.

More generally, I think it's a mistake to ignore the importance of human factors and history when talking about military equipment. Technology is much easier to see and count and measure, but the people who will be using it have much more of an effect on its performance. Very few combat-tested units pass inspection or have their full set of TO&E kit.

 

[Petike]

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.

That's down to the hack writing of most AH media. We at AH.com can do better and have done better.

On a side note, here's a page collecting all sorts of military technology PODs:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=pods:military_technology

You're bound to find something interesting there, including past discussions that touch up on questions you're asking in this thread.

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 forget where, but we once had one of those discussion on the Central Powers winning WWI and what their military designs would be like after the war. One of the debates in the thread noted very wisely that it's all too tempting to just give them the same sort of aircraft OTL post-Kaiser Germany developed, and ignore pre-WWI and WWI trends. If Imperial Germany had survived and been successful, it would make sense that it would pursue those trends, and later trends would be built upon that foundation. For instance, that same member highlighted how the Imperial German monocoque fighter designs wouldn't look like the OTL Bf/Me 109, but would probably be closer to a Fokker D.XXI.

A similar discussion (maybe the same one, I haven't checked) can be seen here. Technology after a Central Powers victory.

Also, have a look here. The British developing their own equivalent of a Sturmovik ground attack and close support plane during WWII.

If Tsarist Russia or a Russian Republic survives and prospers, and they have no need for a particular style of tank, gun or plane even two or three decades after WWI, they probably won't be building any. The USSR was a bit undergunned and had some inadequate equipment when the nazis invaded, but the Soviets did the best they could with their ingenuity, and with the material and time constraints they had. If those exact OTL conditions and challenges were not in place, it speaks to reason that the military technology developed and used could be quite different. For one, if no one bothers Russia after WWI, they'd probably still be using interwar era tanks and tankettes for years, with incremental improvements, before the next big armoured vehicle fleet upgrade.

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.

It very definitely would butterfly away OTL developments, and the likelihood obviously increases with an earlier POD.

You really should take a look at the likes of EdT's Fight and Be Right. He had military technology developments that fit the context of his world. From tank evolution, to warship evolution, to the sorts of military aircraft designed and deployed. It's quite divergent in some crucial details (based on the objectives pursued, or how things originate). When the TL's Great War errupts in the first half of the 1930s, the various powers are not fighting with WWI or WWII tactics known from OTL. Instead, they employ military tactics on roughly an OTL interwar era level of understanding and innovation. It makes for a really different progression of their world's only real equivalent to our world wars. The Great War starts by a Japanese assault on Formosa (Taiwan), where air power is crucial - a big part of the attack is parachuting in airborne troops.

Max's old Chaos Timeline had one military power develop fairly robust tanks that were steam-powered and deployed during a war in North America, maybe one or two decades before they'd be in OTL. (The POD is centuries back.) They were a good example of "ATL technology that's understandable and plausible, but appropriately alien".

On the military developments front, Thande's Look to the West goes borderline steampunk, with several powers developing military towing tractors and self-propelled artillery guns already in the 19th century. With steam propulsion, of course. Nothing fancy or fast, but gives certain sides a technological edge before newer technology shows up.

 

[KuboCaskett]

snip.

You know, I personally like to think of a world where WWII doesn't happen having hardware that resembles OTL's mid to late WWII with some jet aircraft and a world without WWI having hardware that somewhat resembles OTL's WWI and Interwar Era and some Warhammer 40k yet being ironically technologically advanced (not that the infantry would be wearing bulkier than necessary armor mind you). A world where a mostly conventional WWIII in the 1980's happens would have a much bizarre array of hardware that would look like it's from GITS or something cyberpunkish in the post war world.

 

[sloreck]

Military developments are a combination of existing technology and perceived needs. You can't have jet fighters in WWI because overall technology in many fields is simply not there. If you have a world at peace throughout the 20th century, at least no WWI or WWII equivalents, then you won't see the advanced weapons tech you see today. Assuming things go more or less as OTL, with various changes, you'll see semi-automatic rifles, SMGs, tanks, etc although they might be different in many ways from those of the same times OTL.

 

[sdgottsch]

As a general trend, without the hard school of combat, don't you see a lot of solutions that fit pre-conceived notions AND budget, vs anticipation of what's coming up?

I agree with this statement. Without wars, the military does not have a leg to stand on to define a new requirement which gets us a new technology. That is the way it has always been, we only learn from our mistakes after we commit to the battles and unfortunately experience the losses.

For example, without the failures of the "free-fall" bombing campaigns in Vietnam (e.g., Rolling Thunder/Arc Light/Linebacker), the USAF/USN/USMC would not have "required" a Precision Guided Munition (PGM) so it would never have been developed. It might have been worked at the DARPA/AFRL/NRL world but never have gone to operations because it wouldn't have been needed...until it was needed. We used to cut bridges with massive bombardments

Another example, if we didn't have the failures of the M-16's early on in the terrible climate of Vietnam, the lessons learned would not have been identified until another combat situation/war. That is just how the military works, we learn from mistakes in the field.

Another example, without the lessons learned about remotely activated munitions causing casualties in the Iraq Wars (2002-2013) the US Army would never have invested in V-hull technology for the Strykers or invested in MRAP technology. These capabilities had been operationalized in South Africa for decades but the US never included it in the TOA until it was needed and because an urgent operational need.

BLUF, the military doesn't suddenly get the additional Vietnam funding windfall if they don't fight the Vietnam war. That funding would simply go to the social programs of the Johnson Administration.

 

[KuboCaskett]

I agree with this statement. Without wars, the military does not have a leg to stand on to define a new requirement which gets us a new technology. That is the way it has always been, we only learn from our mistakes after we commit to the battles and unfortunately experience the losses.

For example, without the failures of the "free-fall" bombing campaigns in Vietnam (e.g., Rolling Thunder/Arc Light/Linebacker), the USAF/USN/USMC would not have "required" a Precision Guided Munition (PGM) so it would never have been developed. It might have been worked at the DARPA/AFRL/NRL world but never have gone to operations because it wouldn't have been needed...until it was needed. We used to cut bridges with massive bombardments

Another example, if we didn't have the failures of the M-16's early on in the terrible climate of Vietnam, the lessons learned would not have been identified until another combat situation/war. That is just how the military works, we learn from mistakes in the field.

Another example, without the lessons learned about remotely activated munitions causing casualties in the Iraq Wars (2002-2013) the US Army would never have invested in V-hull technology for the Strykers or invested in MRAP technology. These capabilities had been operationalized in South Africa for decades but the US never included it in the TOA until it was needed and because an urgent operational need.

BLUF, the military doesn't suddenly get the additional Vietnam funding windfall if they don't fight the Vietnam war. That funding would simply go to the social programs of the Johnson Administration.

Good point, I hate to see how the military stuff of a TL without a Cold War would look like; might be like a bunch of mid-20th century stuff just with "modern" upgrades and some other hardware that resembles OTL's 2017 like accessory rails and night vision.

 

[phx1138]

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

IMO, the names are the things most likely to be changed, since they're the ones most susceptible to whim. Actual performance depends on service needs, so it's less likely to be affected. Does that mean, frex, OTL's T-34 doesn't enter service, or the D-B *Pz5 does? Maybe.

That said, take a look at the U.S. Navy Sub Force. Expecting to fight in the Pacific, you're going to need a boat of a certain minimum size & range/endurance. Is it treaty limited? Does the U.S. control Hawaii & the P.I., just Hawaii, neither, or more (the Carolines, frex)? That governs the design decisions--but in some sense, the irreducible is the Pacific. The chance of an American Type VII being the standard is pretty slim.

In the same way, the Iowas are likely to look much the same. Armed with 14" or 15", instead? Maybe.

There are certain national characteristics that come into play, & those don't change so readily. Unless your POD has gone back a fair ways...