Tank design without the ETO?

[SealTheRealDeal]

At the start of WWII the 20ton range was about the upper limit of what would be classified as a medium tank by the end of the war you have the start of the main battle tank classification with 52ton Centurion.

So what happens to tank design without the perpetual race between armour and gun that characterized the European (and North African) theatre of WWII?

I think it's worth noting that by the end of the Pacific War the 25ton Matilda II was still able to shrug of most anti-tank fire as though it was still 1940, so while I am willing to give Japan more credit on its tank design than most, I don't think an alt-pacific war would be able to drive armour and gun escalation the same way the ETO did (unless Japan somehow fields the newest anti-tank guns it had prepared for the defence of the home islands in this alt-Pacific War).

The scale of the fighting in the ETO also made it apparent that specialized tanks (infantry, cavalry, break through, ect...) were a bigger logistical burden than they were a tactical asset. I'm not sure that could be replicated without the ETO.

It also put the concept of one-man, and even two-man turrets, out to pasture (at least until autoloaders made two man turrets cool again). This seems like something that would still eventually happen, honestly I'm surprised the French didn't catch on to how overburdened their tank commanders were from just training exercises.

 

[Thoresby]

One and two man turrets are definitely on the way out, as soon as you've got the engines and budget for a three man turret the advantages are so obvious that you're never going to go back to a small turret. You're definitely not going to get the universal tank at least for another generation of two without the experience of combat though the Germans were close with their Panzer III&IV combination. The difference between those two was small enough that the idea of their replacement having a common chassis and different main guns seems inevitable. The generation after that you would get to the British French and Soviets copy, I think.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You're definitely not going to get the universal tank at least for another generation of two without the experience of combat though the Germans were close with their Panzer III&IV combination.

You could say the same about the British with their combination of standard and close support cruiser tanks, The Vickers A10 only needed a duel purpose gun to make the jump to a universal tank in 1940.

 

[marathag]

The Vickers A10 only needed a duel purpose gun to make the jump to a universal tank in 1940.

And some reliability, while you are at it.
In some ways, the older 3 pdr would have been a better choice

 

[Merrick]

Some thoughts:
- More emphasis on light tanks. In western Europe, with a good road net, armoured cars basically took over the recon role. In rough country you need the extra mobility from a tracked vehicle.
- More emphasis on mobility full stop. A light tank at the sharp end beats a medium tank at the bottom of the hill, waiting for the road ahead to be cleared. Developing good engines is a priority and there's more awareness of the trade-off between armour and ground pressure. Also a focus on developing tanks that are air-transportable, air-dropable and/or will fit in small landing craft.
- Reliability a big priority. Any tank in the field beats one in the depot, waiting for spare parts to be shipped 2,000 miles. No Christie suspensions!
- Dedicated assault guns for bunker-busting
- Maybe a different take on the cavalry/infantry tank split? You could have "scout" tanks like the American M24, used for recon and exploitation, with a focus on mobility, reliability and firepower in that order. On the "infantry" side, something more like the Churchill - low speed, heavy armour, a "go-anywhere" suspension and a gun that throws a big HE round.
- If HEAT is developed, maybe a move to a lightweight smoothbore gun/mortar as main armament for small tanks?

 

[Bougnas]

Does the ETO never come to be because Nazi Germany never existed or because it existed but collapsed before a war could begin?

IMO typical arms race logic, especially compared with what the Soviets were outputting (without self-imposed limits) means that tank design will likely become similar to the OTL one, albeit later without a serious drive for rearmament in the 30s. Tensions between Eastern European states and the Soviet Union are likely to fuel tank development on OTL lines even if Germany never rearmed (many countries were developping tanks in the 1920s). Main difference will be that the US won't have to heavily militarize unless Japan was somehow reckless enough to start a war with Western powers on its own. However, with no fast-paced rearmament most great powers will have more time and money to recover from the 1929 economic crisis so by the 40s tank development should become faster simply because the economy improved enough to consider spending more on the military in response to tensions.

That said, some trends we could see ITTL beyond the OTL ones:
- continued use of small, relatively lightly armored and armed tankettes for colonial use in non-desertic areas where the road network isn't developped enough to use armored cars.
- similarly, more powerful yet still light tanks that can be easily airtransported to anywhere on the globe
- no war means that there will be more time and money invested into research to make tanks more reliable, components may be developped precisely for tank use if enough R&D is available but more likely they will rely on commercial automotive components and guns from other military branches simply because production may not be great enough to justify purpose-made components.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Where the Infantry support tank was heading before much experience was had in North Africa. I suppose they could be called a universal tanks with both anti tank capability and a field gun.

 

[DougM]

Well there is a difference between a tank to support the infantry and one designed to fight other tanks.
The Sherman is going to be built one way or the other. It was the intent from the get go with the Lee being a stop gap.
The only reason the Sherman is not considered outstanding is because it was pressed into service fighting ever increasingly power tanks. When in reality the Sherman was designed when the US assumed that tank destroyers would fight tanks not the Sherman.
So in a world without the tank battles of Europe you get.... the Sherman. Pretty much exactly what you had in the Pacific.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Where the Infantry support tank was heading before much experience was had in North Africa. I suppose they could be called a universal tanks with both anti tank capability and a field gun.

View attachment 540237 View attachment 540238

The M3 Lee was only a stopgap design to fill in until the M4 Sherman was ready:

M3 Lee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'm aware, but without the European War boosting budgets the US Army may well have been forced to make do with the stop gap for a few years. Without the European War I doubt the Japanese would have attacked the US so there's no Pacific War.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm aware, but without the European War boosting budgets the US Army may well have been forced to make do with the stop gap for a few years. Without the European War I doubt the Japanese would have attacked the US so there's no Pacific War.

So they likely wait for the Sherman...though TTL Sherman might be different without the lessons from the fighting in 1940.

 

[marathag]

Well there is a difference between a tank to support the infantry and one designed to fight other tanks.
The Sherman is going to be built one way or the other.

When the T6 Prototype was done in September, 1941,

the German Mk IV 'Special' the F2 would not be built until March, 1942

Three MGs in the Hull, and originally was to have the TC's subturret from the Lee, but that was dropped

Had the M2 75mm, with both AP, HE and Smoke rounds, and since the Armor board couldn't have enough MG, a coaxial .30
to keep in contact, had both the SCR506 radio in the hull, and SCR 508 in the turret
The 506 was 90watt CW, 25W voice
The 508 was shorter range, and did the crew coms, and the rear phone outside the hull, that was added later
That way TC could listed to the HQ net and also his platoon. FM, so better quality, but shorter range

Made to fight tanks, and infantry. US Doctrine, even in 1941, never said that Tanks wouldn't fight tanks

 

[jsb]

but without the European War boosting budgets the US Army may well have been forced to make do with the stop gap for a few years.

Would they really get M3s rather than just less M4s, ie if they are budget limited but in less rush would they not simply produce fewer later M4s and never build the M3 that is more how do we build something now when we dont have the turret manufacturing capability to build M4s in large numbers?

 

[marathag]

Would they really get M3s rather than just less M4s, ie if they are budget limited but in less rush would they not simply produce fewer later M4s and never build the M3 that is more how do we build something now when we dont have the turret manufacturing capability to build M4s in large numbers?

The T1 Heavy Tank, with it's heavy turret housing both a 3" and 37mm gun, was finished 4 months before the the T6 Sherman was done.
But without the War, it's likely the T1 would have been like the interwar ideas, a 50-80T tank with four turrets, two with 75mm guns, a 37mm, and a 20mm, with MGs all around, like the M2 Medium.

With no rush on, the M3 would have never been Standardized for production, but a Medium Tank with a 75mm in a welded or riveted turret.

US only went heavy into casting armor was for it's promise high production volume, and to take advantage of the various RR companies that had the ability to do very large pours of Metal.

Without thousands ordered for the US Army and Cash&Carry for UK&France, the US will stay a small volume production targets for Armor, and that would likely be welded. Riveting was also looked at for it's high production rate. Without the need, they knew that Welding was the way to go before the War

 

[Cryhavoc101]

At the start of WWII the 20ton range was about the upper limit of what would be classified as a medium tank by the end of the war you have the start of the main battle tank classification with 52ton Centurion.

So what happens to tank design without the perpetual race between armour and gun that characterized the European (and North African) theatre of WWII?

I think it's worth noting that by the end of the Pacific War the 25ton Matilda II was still able to shrug of most anti-tank fire as though it was still 1940, so while I am willing to give Japan more credit on its tank design than most, I don't think an alt-pacific war would be able to drive armour and gun escalation the same way the ETO did (unless Japan somehow fields the newest anti-tank guns it had prepared for the defence of the home islands in this alt-Pacific War).

The scale of the fighting in the ETO also made it apparent that specialized tanks (infantry, cavalry, break through, ect...) were a bigger logistical burden than they were a tactical asset. I'm not sure that could be replicated without the ETO.

It also put the concept of one-man, and even two-man turrets, out to pasture (at least until autoloaders made two man turrets cool again). This seems like something that would still eventually happen, honestly I'm surprised the French didn't catch on to how overburdened their tank commanders were from just training exercises.

The British had already decided to move away from Light tanks and just concentrate on Cavalry and Infantry tanks but unfortunately had not managed (mainly due to the treasury thinking that being able to build several light tanks for each Infantry / cruiser tank made more sense) to replace their Matilda I infantry tanks in France with Matilda II's - in Fact of the 100 Infantry Tanks in France in May 1940 - 77 were Matilda I and only 23 were Matilda II.

The rest of the 1st BEF tanks were 170 Cruisers and 175 lights.

With total tank losses including the unit thrown away at Calais and lost with the 2nd BEF

​	Light Light VI​	Matilda I​	Matilda II​	Cruiser​
Total​	331​	77​	23​	184​

While light tanks still made up the bulk of AFVs in the British army post Dunkirk - production from June - Aug shows a clear picture of an increase in Infantry tanks and a slow down of light tanks - with 134 Infantry Tanks (which would be Matilda II), 111 Crusiers and 77 light tanks in the 2 months shown

​	Infantry​	Cruiser​	Light​	Carriers​
June 30th​	140​	209​	582​	2,242​
July 31st​	218​	284​	657​	3,181​
August 31st​	274​	322​	659​	3,784​

So there is a clear change away from Light tanks - so for the British I could see this trend continuing with the Cruiser and Infantry lines being continued and the light tanks being discontinued.

There is a pretty good video on French tank design and doctrine and why they were where they were in May 1940.

A lot of the issues were known but they ran out of time to address them, hell some units were still working out how to refuel their tanks let alone 'fight them'