I did a couple of drawings of alternate Union barrels with 88mm guns and a drawing of a heavy barrel with the Tiger-II turret, there on the first dozen pages or so of this thread if you guys are interested.But then, shouldn't the latest US barrel be a Tiger II?
88mm gun? Check.
Sloped armor? Check.
Weighing upwards of 40 tons? Check.
TL-191: Yankee Joe - Uniforms, Weapons, and Vehicles of the U.S. Armed Forces
- Thread starter Alterwright
- Start date
It might fill a roll similar to the Soviet 122mm gun. Or the US might even have heavy AA or Anti-Barrel guns in 4.7", similar to the German 12.8cm.
As an aside, since i saw a lot of back and forth about the Great Lakes Battleships and Coast Defense Ships, I would like to point out that the US had is own class of these OTL, the Indiana-class. Further, itt occurs to me that some might have been retained as training ships, and ended up seeing service in Lake Erie bombarding Confederates approaching the lake shore until sunk by Mules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana-class_battleship
How heavily motorized would the Union and Confederate armies be exactly during the second Great War? Since I don't see either being motorized to the same level as OTL USA and being rather reliant on pack mules and the like.
This is an interesting question. During the SGW arc books, I don't recall much reference to any animals being used in warfare at all, though I will see, as I am currently rereading them.
So, we have several things to consider. First of all, the United States could very well be quite motorized. They have the large auto factories of the North, Especially in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. THey also have all the resources they need to take advantage of that, such as the steel producing regions in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the oil of California, Dakota, and Canada. THe books also give me no indication that the US is any less motorized than OTL, especially given that in WWII, the motorization of the US Army was in large part due to the industry of the North, and the large amount of draftees from urban background who possessed familiarity with automobiles, or complete mechanic skills. THe US Army would definitely take advantage of this against the Confederacy, especially in the western theaters where they would need to make use of it to pin down the Confederates in the open spaces west of the Mississippi while most of the manpower and effort is going towards the east.
I do think you might see more use of animal power in some secondary theaters. An example being the campaign in Utah, where the Mormons have no real motorization of their own, nad some of the fighting is in mountainous terrain. Pack mules might also see a lot of use in the Appalachians, where the terrain is quite similar to that of central Italy, where the US Army used them as well.
On the COnfederate side, we might look at Turtledove's basic inspiration, the Wehrmacht. The Confederacy lacks the same scale of industry the Germans had, and the Germans themselves were always short of trucks. Another factor to consider is that the South of TL-191 is also more motorized than the South of OTL, after Featherston pushed ahead the program of mechanization in order to render negro labor irrelevant and clear the way for his Population Reductions. The Confederates would probably, like the Wehrmacht, concentrate as much of their available motor vehicles with their armored units for the same reason. You might also, in the later stages of the war and out west, see a lot of Confederate "technicals", civilian vehicles confiscated and quickly given welded on weapons. But overall, the Confederates would probably see a lot more usage of animals, especially for use in the Appalachians, as I mentioned before, and for rear area tasks to free up trucks for the front.
One final thing that goes unmentioned in the SGW books, but which I think bears mentioning, is cavalry. In spite of the machine gun, cavalry enjoyed a last hurrah in WWII on the Eastern Front, where the large open spaces, rugged terrain, and presence of several less motorized nations contributed to their usage. The Soviets had several dozen cavalry divisions, mostly Cossacks, and the Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians all used cavalry. Given the advent of lighter, more portable machine guns, infantry antitank weapons, and light artillery in the form of mortars, I might suggest that the Western Theater of the SGW would see a brief revival in cavalry fighting as mounted infantry in the open space of Texas, Sequoyah, Kansas, COnfederate Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and so on. Possible even further east, in terrain such as the swampy areas of the Deep South (The Russians used large numbers of cavalry in the Pripyet Marshes in Belorussia) and so on.
So, we have several things to consider. First of all, the United States could very well be quite motorized. They have the large auto factories of the North, Especially in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. THey also have all the resources they need to take advantage of that, such as the steel producing regions in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and the oil of California, Dakota, and Canada. THe books also give me no indication that the US is any less motorized than OTL, especially given that in WWII, the motorization of the US Army was in large part due to the industry of the North, and the large amount of draftees from urban background who possessed familiarity with automobiles, or complete mechanic skills. THe US Army would definitely take advantage of this against the Confederacy, especially in the western theaters where they would need to make use of it to pin down the Confederates in the open spaces west of the Mississippi while most of the manpower and effort is going towards the east.
I do think you might see more use of animal power in some secondary theaters. An example being the campaign in Utah, where the Mormons have no real motorization of their own, nad some of the fighting is in mountainous terrain. Pack mules might also see a lot of use in the Appalachians, where the terrain is quite similar to that of central Italy, where the US Army used them as well.
On the COnfederate side, we might look at Turtledove's basic inspiration, the Wehrmacht. The Confederacy lacks the same scale of industry the Germans had, and the Germans themselves were always short of trucks. Another factor to consider is that the South of TL-191 is also more motorized than the South of OTL, after Featherston pushed ahead the program of mechanization in order to render negro labor irrelevant and clear the way for his Population Reductions. The Confederates would probably, like the Wehrmacht, concentrate as much of their available motor vehicles with their armored units for the same reason. You might also, in the later stages of the war and out west, see a lot of Confederate "technicals", civilian vehicles confiscated and quickly given welded on weapons. But overall, the Confederates would probably see a lot more usage of animals, especially for use in the Appalachians, as I mentioned before, and for rear area tasks to free up trucks for the front.
One final thing that goes unmentioned in the SGW books, but which I think bears mentioning, is cavalry. In spite of the machine gun, cavalry enjoyed a last hurrah in WWII on the Eastern Front, where the large open spaces, rugged terrain, and presence of several less motorized nations contributed to their usage. The Soviets had several dozen cavalry divisions, mostly Cossacks, and the Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians all used cavalry. Given the advent of lighter, more portable machine guns, infantry antitank weapons, and light artillery in the form of mortars, I might suggest that the Western Theater of the SGW would see a brief revival in cavalry fighting as mounted infantry in the open space of Texas, Sequoyah, Kansas, COnfederate Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and so on. Possible even further east, in terrain such as the swampy areas of the Deep South (The Russians used large numbers of cavalry in the Pripyet Marshes in Belorussia) and so on.
I find a thought i've had previously in regards to musings on an America with a monarchy returning. That being cavalry units in the west made up entirely of both sides Indians, in a similar manner to the Russian's units of Cossacks, and the German tendency to accumulate ethnically homogenous volunteer units.
The closet way I could see that happening is if the United States suffered a nasty Soviet/Yugoslavia styled break up during the last decade of the twentieth century. Leading to the American people not really believing in democracy anymore, with some Putin styled figure eventually gaining and eventually seeing his son inherenting the presidency after his death. Leaving the vestigial of the Union with an unofficial dynasty.
No no. I didn't mean the US becomes a monarchy. I was saying that this is a thought i had related to other TLs where the US becomes a monarchy after the revolution. Usually by way of Prussians.
^^^ --- If the US Army can't have a semi-automatic infantry rifle, then how about a semi-automatic anti-tank rifle!
This is the Winchester-Williams .50 BMG Anti-Tank Rifle. Its an experimental anti-tank rifle developed by Winchester in an effort to supply the US Army with its own anti-tank rifle. It had a gas-tappet, rotating bolt system similar to that of the M1 Carbine and could fire in semi-auto mode from a 10-round .50 cal magazine. It weighted 25 pounds. Although it was never tested by the US Army, the Canadian Army tested it out extensively and found that the rifle passed all its tests and could be used for military service. However, both the US Army and Canadian Army ultimately found no need for this rifle since it already used Boys Anti-Tank Rifles. On top of that the concept of the anti-tank rifle was not so appealing after WWII and so production on the rifle never happened.
So this is not a so much an alternate weapons so much as it is an actual gun that never got to see action or production. Perhaps this gun might be butter-flied away given the mechanism on the gun, but it would be cool to hear what you guys think. Since the Boys Anti-Tank Rifle was a British design, it is possible that the US Army may not have an anti-tank rifle of its own. Perhaps we might see production of this in this timeline.
That would be a nice thing. I can especially see it being used as a weapon on armored cars or scout cars earlier in the war, like the British and Russians did. ANd a great weapon for cavalry to defend themselves against those pesky armored cars and light barrels out on the plains. I don't think US troops used them too much OTL, but that's mainly because I think we were getting more than enough bazookas to go around by the time we got into the fighting. I could also see these being dropped behind the lines as gifts to the black guerillas.
Ah yes! I forgot that these things could be used against armored cars as well! In a story I did recently for one of the threads, I had a soldier use it against lightly armored SPGs and light-barrels, as well as an un-scoped sniper rifle of sorts meant to hit targets behind light cover
The war in North America is very different than in our timeline and the armies of the US and CS would have different needs. To me, I believe a rifle like this, especially semi-auto one, would be able to fill a niche in the US Army at a critical time. Its use would not survive past the war of course, but for the time it was in service it would see action.
How about this for a production version of the Williams 50?
I call it the Williams 51 an upgraded design made after hearing army suggestions for improvements.
Awesome!!! I love it! Williams-51 Barrel-Buster Rifle! (or whatever an AT rifle would be called in this timeline)
Yeah for sure if this thing was to go into mass production and into the hands of troops there would have to be some modifications to it. A butt-stock with a cushion on it would be one of the top modifications I'd say, especially since it would be fired in semi-auto mode and the recoil from it would hurt the user's shoulders on repeated use. A bipod would increase stability and make it easier to use while going prone.
I also added an extra large muzzle break to it to decrease the recoil and hide the flash a bit.
Barrel Buster Gun rolls off the tongue better than rifle IMO.
Works good as an acronym too! Barrel-Buster Gun, BBG. I love all of it, its great! And yeah the added muzzle break on it would also come in handy. I'm actually surprised it doesn't have one. Well the actual gun was just a proto-type, so they may have wanted to add more stuff to it but never got the chance. At least her it looks like a proper gun!
^^^ --- Btw, if you interested in the actual gun itself, here's a handy video about it! Like I said, it might be butter-flied away because of the fire mechanisms involved, but it would be such a shame in my opinion to let gun like this fade fourth into obscurity!
A quiet philosophy of mine in Alt-His stuff is to make weird or forgotten guns be used!
I prefer to use sections from different weapons (planes, tanks, guns) to make new ones and if I can use sections from little known weapons, even better.<>
A quiet philosophy of mine in Alt-His stuff is to make weird or forgotten guns be used!
I've only been able to to do a a couple of submarines and a torpedo boat, ships are hard.
Part of the problem is finding good drawings in a similar size that I can cutup and blend together.
Yeah, ships are hard to find references for I think for this timeline unfortunately
I think the only two ships that I can get a good visual reference for is the USS Remembrance and the USS Sandwich Islands. I believe, based on what was hinted at, that they are this world's versions of the Lexington and the Ranger, respectively.
As far as battleships are concerned, I have no idea what they would be like either.
I think the only two ships that I can get a good visual reference for is the USS Remembrance and the USS Sandwich Islands. I believe, based on what was hinted at, that they are this world's versions of the Lexington and the Ranger, respectively.
As far as battleships are concerned, I have no idea what they would be like either.
Last edited: