Which three 1944 technologies would have biggest Impact 1915?

Deleted member 1487

My vote goes in for the Panzer I *and it's derivative, the 15 cm sIG 33 (Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen I Ausf B (Panzer I Bison). The Panzer I is plenty for the combat of the time, and a self-propelled 15cm gun to support them and follow the infantry on the assault, keeping respectable artillery firepower with them on the go, can't hurt at all.
A Wespe probably would be a game changer if they could keep it supplied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wespe
 

Perkeo

Banned
Tanks, the Enigma and some tactical advice.

Plus the hint to send a certain private to a very dangerous mission...
 
A Wespe probably would be a game changer if they could keep it supplied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wespe

I considered the Wespe but that thing is made on the Panzer II chassis and if there's to be any hope of them coming even close to starting work on a reasonable tank force in the Great War, it would be best done with vehicles on a universal chassis. Also, the plate of the Panzer II and by extension Wespe was as thick as 30mm in some places, and thick plates are very hard to work with using the low end metallurgy available to 1915 Germany.

I still stand by sending a copy of Achtung -- Panzer! as one of the best possible things you could do for Germany
 

Deleted member 1487

I still stand by sending a copy of Achtung -- Panzer! as one of the best possible things you could do for Germany
Why? You can't say the Pz II was too hard to make for 1915 Germany and they say that a book about Panzer use would be helpful.
 
Why? You can't say the Pz II was too hard to make for 1915 Germany and they say that a book about Panzer use would be helpful.

It wasn't an instruction manual, it was an argumentative book about the value of armored and motorized doctrine that presents what they may be able to do to break the positional trench warfare of the Western front.
 

Deleted member 1487

It wasn't an instruction manual, it was an argumentative book about the value of armored and motorized doctrine that presents what they may be able to do to break the positional trench warfare of the Western front.
What point is that if you don't have the tools? I'd be like having a manual about how to solve WW2 with nuclear weapons from the 1960s, but lacking nuclear weapons or the means to make them in 1939.
 
What point is that if you don't have the tools? I'd be like having a manual about how to solve WW2 with nuclear weapons from the 1960s, but lacking nuclear weapons or the means to make them in 1939.

And that's where this thread comes into play-- there were three things they could take, and I wanted to pair a book that described the value of motorization and armored combat with the Panzer I tank, something small enough for a budding tank industry to reasonably be able to handle. It is just 5.4 tons, and with armor 13mm thick it is not unreasonable for industry of the time to manufacture such a tank-- the Mark IV and V had plates of similar thickness and 30 ton weights. The A7V, while a hunk of garbage, demonstrated that they could build small numbers of a heavy monstrosity. But with a more manageable machine, i.e. Panzer I, and an idea of what sort of value it may offer, it's not unreasonable to conclude they could put together a respectable armored force to see what they could do about that trench warfare mess.
 

Deleted member 1487

And that's where this thread comes into play-- there were three things they could take, and I wanted to pair a book that described the value of motorization and armored combat with the Panzer I tank, something small enough for a budding tank industry to reasonably be able to handle. It is just 5.4 tons, and with armor 13mm thick it is not unreasonable for industry of the time to manufacture such a tank-- the Mark IV and V had plates of similar thickness and 30 ton weights. The A7V, while a hunk of garbage, demonstrated that they could build small numbers of a heavy monstrosity. But with a more manageable machine, i.e. Panzer I, and an idea of what sort of value it may offer, it's not unreasonable to conclude they could put together a respectable armored force to see what they could do about that trench warfare mess.
If anything the A7V proves that the Pz II was viable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V
Armor Hull – Front: 30 mm (1.2 in)

Engine
2 × Daimler-Benz 4-cylinder
200 hp (149 kW) total
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm aware of the plate thickness, but that plate was not armor grade steel. Using hardened plate for such a thickness was not practical, and I wouldn't say a production run of 20 justifies a vehicle with similar plate thickness as really viable.
How do you think they made WW1 battleships? They had the technology to make 30mm armor, even if not WW2 grade protection. No need for that level of protection in WW1, especially if you have a quicker AFV that can shoot back reasonably quickly and has infantry cover...not to mention has SP artillery cover. Actually I think they could have self-propelled artillery if they wanted to invest the resources without UT tech, they just needed the concept for it. If they could make a 30 ton A7V they could have made a SP 105mm platform.
 
How do you think they made WW1 battleships? They had the technology to make 30mm armor, even if not WW2 grade protection. No need for that level of protection in WW1, especially if you have a quicker AFV that can shoot back reasonably quickly and has infantry cover...not to mention has SP artillery cover. Actually I think they could have self-propelled artillery if they wanted to invest the resources without UT tech, they just needed the concept for it. If they could make a 30 ton A7V they could have made a SP 105mm platform.

I like the idea of self propelled artillery for Germany in WW1-- I mentioned the Panzer I Bison in my original post, and the reason i disagreed with you over the Wespe was because I think an SPG in a budding tank industry ought to be based on the same chassis as the tank it serves alongside.
 

Deleted member 1487

I like the idea of self propelled artillery for Germany in WW1-- I mentioned the Panzer I Bison in my original post, and the reason i disagreed with you over the Wespe was because I think an SPG in a budding tank industry ought to be based on the same chassis as the tank it serves alongside.
The Bison was heavily overburdened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33_(Sf)_auf_Panzerkampfwagen_I_Ausf_B
The Pz II was viable as a platform for WW1, even if cutting edge technology, so could be a SP artillery platform as well. The bigger issue in general is the problem of production given the production situation in Germany throughout WW1.
 
The Bison was heavily overburdened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33_(Sf)_auf_Panzerkampfwagen_I_Ausf_B
The Pz II was viable as a platform for WW1, even if cutting edge technology, so could be a SP artillery platform as well. The bigger issue in general is the problem of production given the production situation in Germany throughout WW1.

Yeah, the issue of production was part of why I picked the Panzer I. A lesser engine, thinner plates, smaller size, etc. I'm under no delusion that the Bison was any masterpiece (by god just look at the thing), but on the more production friendly Panzer I hull it's at least manageable to manufacture en masse-- and by 1940 standards, unreliable has a very different meaning from 1915.
 
For WWI , you have to worry about crossing trenches.

So this
1329733608_1-605.jpg

Or
A1E1-Vickers-Independent.jpg
 
Top