TL-191 Uniform, weapons and equipment of the Secondary Combatants.

Discussion in 'Alternate History Books and Media' started by pattontank12, Jan 22, 2019.

  1. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    @Undeadmuffin @pattontank12 @cortz#9 --- Ta-dah

    Quebecois Army Uniform: 1930s-1940s

    hJb58Gh.png

    ^^^ --- Uniforms without insignia. French style uniform with greatcoat and puttees, with locally made beret, German/US style Stahlhelm, and US style webbing.

    k1xo7ch.png

    ^^^ --- Uniform with insignia.
     
  2. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    The turret I used is called the Schmalturm and was inspired by the Panther's turret for the Pz-IV but was never put into production.
    Pz-IV-Schmal..jpg

    The suspension and chassis came from a 1942 design called the Pz-III/IV, a new tank design that incorporated parts from both the Pz.III and the Pz.IV.
    german-vk-12-big.jpg

    I modified both the turret and the sloped hull for my alt Imp. German barrel and added the pig's-head mantle gun from the Panther Mk.II that never went into production but I used the earlier KwK 40 7.5 cannon.
    panther II.gif

    And that's how you make an alternate historical tank or barrel. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2019
    Alterwright likes this.
  3. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    I had no idea the Germans were thinking to add a Panther turret onto a Panzer IV! No wonder it was made smaller to fit onto the hull. I'd wager the actual Panther turret itself would weigh a hefty bit and make the Panzer IV heavier than it should.

    Good shit man! Once again your editing skills come through and we got a great tank out of it.
     
    cortz#9 likes this.
  4. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    The schmalturm turret on a sloped armored Pz.IV could've been a pretty decent tank and a better match up against late war era Shermans and T-34-85's.
     
    Alterwright likes this.
  5. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    I thought the Panzer IVs were already more than a match for the Shermans? Or, wait, are you referring to the Sherman Easy-8s and Fireflies?
     
  6. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Yes the late war era Shermans and T-34's.
     
    Alterwright likes this.
  7. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Pz-VII ausf.C armed with the KwK. 42/L70 7.5cm cannon.
    + Hndsght. Pz.Kfw. IV.jpg
     
    Alterwright likes this.
  8. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    Neato! An up-gunned version of the Panzer VII you made previously. So you implied that the tank design itself could stand up to what the French, British, and Russians could throw at it. I imagine then that this version was up-gunned in response to what the Russians were making. And yes I say the Russians specifically, because I still think a mini arms race when it comes to tanks would still occur even in this timeline. Would be cool to see your interpretation of the Panzer VII's main Russian foe too, to give a sort of comparison to what it was up against.
     
  9. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    I'm giving the Russians and the British barrel development some thought, any thoughts or suggestions will be considered.
     
  10. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    Oof. To be honest I wouldn't even know where to start with the British. They'd most likely have the same tanks as in our timeline, but its hard to say, especially with butterfly effects that would have made some tank development different.

    You had a good start with the Russian design you had previously on this thread. Perhaps with when looking for sources for designs, you can take a lesson from how the Soviets got their tank designs --- foreign knock-offs! The BTs and other early Soviet designs were just copies of foreign tanks essentially, catered and tailored for use in Russia. I recall a few early Soviet designs taking inspiration from British export models. Since Britain and France are still allies there could be a bit of tech sharing and military cooperation.

    So what I'm saying is... maybe there would be some British or French influence? Though to what extent I don't know...
     
  11. Pangur The Cat Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    The Matilda and the Cruiser as starting points come to mind.
     
    cortz#9 likes this.
  12. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    Right. So we have two different tanks with two different deisng philosophies in mind --- cruiser tank and infantry tank. One that supports the infantry that goes very slow, but has fairly decent armor and another that can go really fast to exploit breakthroughs into enemy lines, but is light armored.
     
  13. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Would the British in a TL that lost WWI still have developed both the cruiser and infantry tank?
     
    Alterwright likes this.
  14. Alterwright "You were never even a player."

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Location:
    California, USA
    That's a good point. And possibly a larger question than what it at first seems. I believe tank development for the British would be... slightly different, but there would be development nonetheless. It is very possibly that British tank philosophy was changed around a bit however and of course the British would only export these designs to allied nations --- the US being a notable exception that went on its own philosophy in TL-191.

    It all comes down to experience in the Great War I believe. For sure Britain would want a tank to support the infantry and based experienced gleaned from North America and how successful Custer implemented them, they'd also be looking into "breakthrough tanks" --- ones with a lot of firepower, but probably not so fast (?)
     
    pattontank12 likes this.
  15. Pangur The Cat Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    Would not depend on why the though they lost that war?
     
    cortz#9 likes this.
  16. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Good point.
     
  17. rvbomally Russian Hacker

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    I actually imagined TTL France going along the cruiser/infantry lines of thought. My idea is that the French still had the terrible experience of losing a generation of young men in the trenches, so they’d want something defensive that could help them, but since they lost the war, they also want to take the fight to the Germans and despoil their lands by having the battles over there. From what I recall of the progress of the Western European front, the Entente managed to advance quickly into Germany and was stopped at the Rhine, so in the early stages, this plan worked.

    So, the French would develop infantry tanks to protect their soldiers, which would resemble their more defensive OTL designs. But, they’d also have faster, offensively-minded tanks to drive the Germans back quickly in an alt-blitzkrieg-meets-cult of the offensive, which resemble their OTL post-WWII tanks. These tanks may be the new darlings of the cavalry which did little in the Great War, and may even take on that general theme (as opposed to the cruiser concept, a naval theme appropriate for the British). So, French “cavalry barrels” that are named after famous French cavalry officers (Ney) or cavalry types (dragoon, hussar, curiassier).

    Also, lots of self-propelled guns. To move all of the artillery to a front that will get further and further very quickly.
     
    pattontank12 likes this.
  18. rvbomally Russian Hacker

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    And some thoughts on the other big two Entente powers.

    The Russian Empire is both easy and difficult. Simply put, what barrels? I don’t see the Russian Empire ITTL having the capacity to develop barrels to the degree that the OTL Soviet Union did. I see war-damaged, socially unstable Russia as being two steps away from OTL’s warlord China. I simply don’t see the Russians having any domestic tank industry (which frees up Soviet designs for other countries to use, like the Yankees).

    However, I do see them having quite a bit of foreign-built armor and domestic armored cars. The latter would mostly be what the Russians used in WWI or what the Soviets had in the interwar period. The former would be Entente surplus sold/gifted to the Russians during and after the Russian Civil War: a mix of WWI designs (the FT-17 comes to mind immediately) and interwar designs. Perhaps some Confederate barrel designs make their way to Russia?

    The situation in Russia is like OTL China: a hodgepodge of foreign designs slapped onto an ill-equipped army. I could see Russian infantry having helmets from all sides, mixed with WWI and civil war-era caps. Their main rifle is the trusty Mosin-Nagant, followed closely by pretending to have a rifle. They’re still hauling around water-cooled Vickers machine guns on wheels, or on a horse-drawn cart. However, like the OTL Chinese, they have a small corps of elite, well-equipped troops trained by a foreign power. Nazi Germany in the case of OTL China, and likely Actionist France in the case of Russia. This unit will likely be responsible for the only Russian successes early on in the war.

    As for the British, I suspect that they get late into the war footing game. While the French are gearing up for round two as soon as possible, the immediate post-war mood in Britain is that of “isolation is splendid and the alternative is anything but.” They let themselves get dragged into a continental war and it got them nothing but some graves in Belgium. Until Mosley’s boys get into power, I think the focus of the Brits would be to maintain the empire they have left. This means they will be focused predominantly on keeping up with the Kaiser in naval affairs, ensuring the Japanese don’t have any creative ideas for East Asia, and reminding natives in the colonies that the old ditty about Maxim guns still applies. So, British interwar tanks would mostly be light, intended to operate in bad terrain against enemies who have no armor whatsoever. The design philosophy is something I see mirroring OTL Japan: tankettes and light tanks intended to support infantry.

    When Mosley takes power, and especially after Spain, the focus shifts back to a war in Europe. This follows French and Confederate philosophy, two powers who were leaps and bounds ahead of the British in land warfare. Ironically, I foresee British designs being inspired by Confederate designs and in this way resembling OTL British designs.[1] However, I also think that “perfidious Albion” is more than happy to let the French do most of the dying, so they don’t really have it in mind to create massive expeditionary forces like they eventually did in the Great War. Instead, the British Army would be like it was in the beginning of the Great War: a small number of elite troops. Their barrels would be intended to operate in tandem with infantry in what I could only describe as modern combined arms tactics. Unlike the Actionists or the OTL British, TTL’s British don’t have an infantry/cruiser mindset. In fact, I see them pioneering the concept of the main battle tank (possibly called a “universal tank” ITTL, as it’s appropriately British-sounding; perhaps changed to “universal barrel” after the war, tank having the connotation that panzer does IOTL).

    [1] We have to go deeper, Leo!
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  19. rvbomally Russian Hacker

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    And some thoughts on the German Empire: totally unlike the Third Reich, the Germans have a defense focus. They aren’t looking to fight a war in Europe, and they just want to hold on to what they have. So, ironically, their armor develops along OTL French lines: heavy, “mobile fortresses” intended to support infantry and fortifications. The Großtraktor is a design I could see being developed and filling a role similar to the OTL Char B1. Any “mobile warfare” would be expected to happen in the East, against the industrially inferior Russians, and so plenty of light barrels that can’t actually fight other barrels. This puts Germany in a strategic disadvantage in the early war, and they gradually develop new barrels and those inspired by the Americans to fill the gaps.
     
    Whiteshore and Historyman 14 like this.
  20. cortz#9 Obrltnt of Kampfgruppe Seelöw

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    I have to disagree with you here, I think the Germans would see the possible future danger of Britain and especially France to want to get revenge at some point in the future and they may think the best defense is a good offense.
    I don't think they would fall into a defense or Maginot line mentality.
    Just MHO.