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.
