Question: WWII Armored Warfare and Related Stuff

First off, some basic information. I'd say I know more than the average bear about tanks and armored warfare. But that's really not saying a lot, and compared to the average of the people on this forum, I'm probably below par. The last time I ever really looked into it was a brief time in middle school, when I was bored, in a history buff phase, and there really wasn't that much good on TV.

So, since this board is full of people much more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, and I'm getting to a point in my current TL Red Dawn that I'm going to need to deal with this sort of stuff, so here's my question.

Okay, first off let's assume that all the major powers except America basically go along the same basic path that they went IOTL. There's no major divergences in political control of the countries, and the instititions of state haven't been turned upside down. There's not been any major tank battles with which to study armored warfare prior to the outbreak my TL's WWII, so like IOTL, there's no external stimulus for change.

However, things are quite a bit different ITTL's America. Without boring you with the details, let's just say the proverbial world is turned upside down by a socialist revolution in America, and people who were or are advocates for major advancements in armored warfare are much more dominant in the Army.

So, experts, my question is this: if such people had, basically, carte blanche, within reason, to develop the weapons systems, doctrines and such as they saw fit within the military, what kind of outcome could reasonably be expected? I know that IOTL, American military doctrine with regards to tanks wasn't much different than WWI's emphasis on infantry support, and tanks were generally considered to be much less important than they actually proved to be in combat. So what changes then. What kind of technology would be developed as opposed to OTL? What kind of weapon systems could we expect? What kind of military organizations might be made?

Go crazy. :D
 

Larrikin

Banned
Go track down the 1930's writings of Adnan Chaffee, the armour officer that the M24 'Chaffee' was named for.

He was the US Army's pre-eminent armoured officer and thinker during those years.
 
Dunno if civil war / revolution would bring the US to pour resources into armored warfare. The important branch strategically pre-WW2 was the Navy, the US has two neigbors, both of which aren't much of a threat, and you don't need tanks to fight a civil war or a colonial war. What got the US into armor was the need to fight the Germans and the Russians, plus an increasing preference for capital- over labor-intensive warfare due to the political cost associated with the latter.
 
Dunno if civil war / revolution would bring the US to pour resources into armored warfare. The important branch strategically pre-WW2 was the Navy, the US has two neigbors, both of which aren't much of a threat, and you don't need tanks to fight a civil war or a colonial war. What got the US into armor was the need to fight the Germans and the Russians, plus an increasing preference for capital- over labor-intensive warfare due to the political cost associated with the latter.
I think it would, since any leftist government allied with the Soviet Union would be preparing for an eventual conflict with fascism, and Nazi Germany in particular.
 
I think it would, since any leftist government allied with the Soviet Union would be preparing for an eventual conflict with fascism, and Nazi Germany in particular.
But where do they land all those tanks? They can't go through France or England, since they are now dirty commies, so are they gonna ship them to Vladivostok? Maintaining a bunch of armored divisions at the end of a supply line stretching around two thirds of the planet is gonna be a bitch. It's a bit impractical for them to do much with the Army in this scenario I think. I have no idea what they might do, unless the Brits really hold their noses/lose their minds and admit a couple hundred thousand communist troops into the county. Take Iceland and head for Norway possibly, but that would still make the first priority the Navy, Marines second, Air Force - based in Norway - third. They aren't gonna be any better at tanks as in the original timeline. Edit: and IMO they were really reasonably good at armored warfare IOTL.
 
But where do they land all those tanks? They can't go through France or England, since they are now dirty commies, so are they gonna ship them to Vladivostok? Maintaining a bunch of armored divisions at the end of a supply line stretching around two thirds of the planet is gonna be a bitch. It's a bit impractical for them to do much with the Army in this scenario I think. I have no idea what they might do, unless the Brits really hold their noses/lose their minds and admit a couple hundred thousand communist troops into the county. Take Iceland and head for Norway possibly, but that would still make the first priority the Navy, Marines second, Air Force - based in Norway - third. They aren't gonna be any better at tanks as in the original timeline. Edit: and IMO they were really reasonably good at armored warfare IOTL.
Delving a bit deeper into the specifics in my timeline, the current government regard's the British Empire as a significant threat as well. For example, an international incident sparked by a revolution in Cuba against the old US government-in-exile nearly brought the socialist regime in America into a full scale war with Britain.

Even so, Red America's priorities, ranked are 1) Keep Britain neutral, whether by making war prohibitively costly for them or otherwise, 2) Attempt to contain Nazi Germany via diplomacy and alliances with the capitalist powers of Europe (admittedly very difficult, but preventing a pan-European rightist alliance is very important) and finally 3) Be prepared to assist the Soviet Union in case of war with Nazi Germany.

Yes, I agree that the Navy is very important in any circumstance. But like IOTL, ITTL America already has a powerful, world-class navy. Also, coming from a naval family and having educated myself about, happen to understand more about the intricacies of naval warfare, so I did not bother to ask about it. It's the army that needs to cover the most ground, even if it is ultimately subordinate in importance to the Navy and Air Force.

As for maintaining an army in the Soviet Union should using other more convenient places be impossible, there are many ways to mitigate this problem. For example, many post-revolution American and Soviet weapons systems will be designed to use the same ammunition, and even perhaps the same spareparts wherever possible. There's no reason why a Soviet T34 and an American equivalent tank couldn't share the same main gun, engine or tracks.

Personally, I think that American armored warfare doctrine was hindered considerably in the interwar period, and America was forced to play a lot of catch up, and learned quite a few brutal lessons on the battlefield because of it. American tank doctrine placed tanks subordinate to infantry, and the resulting tanks, while excellent for the role of infantry support, were demonstrably subpar at dealing with enemy tanks.

One thing that I think is obvious is that the level of mechanization in the military will be greater at the beginning of WW2 than it was IOTL.
 
Top