An Armoured Warfare Revolution

[The Federalist]

What if the ideas of De Gaulle, Guderian, Tukhachevsky(say he avoids the Purges or the Purges are avoided in general) and J.F.C. Fuller on Armoured Warfare become really popular and are adopted by their respective countries(in the case of Guderian, this did happen) in the time leading up to World War II (in the 20's or 30's)? How would the war play out differently, tactically and strategically?

 

[Max Sinister]

Improbable - people hoped there'd be no more big war after WW1. And even if: In four countries at the same time? How? Aliens attacking?

 

[Calgacus]

Improbable - people hoped there'd be no more big war after WW1. And even if: In four countries at the same time? How? Aliens attacking?

It's not that improbable. The genesis was there, and it wouldn't take too much to sway the High Commands. It needn't happen exactly at the same time, just in that 20 year period. Perhaps the Germans use greater armoured forces in the Spanish Civil War - these gain a resounding victory, and suddenly all the other nations are scrambling to implement their own armoured tactics...

 

[merlin]

For the Germans it was easier, though Guderian's persistence did matter, because they were limited in army size (in theory) it gave them better firepower. Also unlike the British they had no vested interest to protect.

For the British there would be problems - where would armoured formations be used? After WW1 its main areas of combat would more likely be the Empire in minor 'brush-fire' conflicts. Yet, it had the experience, the technical no-how, and officers who could see the potential. I think I am right in saying that none of the 'commanders' of the tank formations that fought successfully in the Salisbury Plain manoeuvres of 1935 (?) saw WW2 active service with tanks - e.g. Broadhurst, Pile & Martel.
Yet it doesn't seem implausible to think that Fuller's & Hobart's ideas could have been acted upon - if the Treasury would allow the funding!! Maybe then the BEF would have been wholly armoured - and with decent tanks!!

 

[Peter Cowan]

A better armoured BEF would be somewhere inside Belgium whilst the Germans were astride the Somme, In fact, the further inside Belgium the BEF was, the worse it would be as its supply lines were cut. As the Germans learnt at Stalingrad, an effective modern army is of little value if its support units are of poor quality. This isn't to denigrate the French...the best French units were also inside Belgium and the 1st French Army defending Lille helped the BEF to stabilise the line at Dunkirk. The real problme was that French armies in the Ardennes were amongst the least effective that could be deployed, somewhat similar to the Italian, Romanian and Hungarian armies in 1942.

 

[PeterMac]

Tank (I assume we are talking only about tanks?) evolution was pretty even during the 2nd World War. What actually counted was quantity. The German Tiger tank would outclass a Sherman of A T34 but the Germans never had the numbers, plus the Tiger was an infinately more complex tank to make and maintain with twice the moving parts of that of a Russian or an American tank.

Counter Factual; Germany develops a 'Simpler' tank with the still effective 88mm barrel and is able therefore to produce them in greater numbers during 1941 and 1942. THe Battle Kursk results in a decisive victory for the Germans. The war on the Eastern Front is therefore protracted. Eventual raw material and manpower resources still lead to a German defeat but the war is prolonged until early 1946

 

[Calgacus]

Tank (I assume we are talking only about tanks?) evolution was pretty even during the 2nd World War. What actually counted was quantity. The German Tiger tank would outclass a Sherman of A T34 but the Germans never had the numbers, plus the Tiger was an infinately more complex tank to make and maintain with twice the moving parts of that of a Russian or an American tank.

Counter Factual; Germany develops a 'Simpler' tank with the still effective 88mm barrel and is able therefore to produce them in greater numbers during 1941 and 1942. THe Battle Kursk results in a decisive victory for the Germans. The war on the Eastern Front is therefore protracted. Eventual raw material and manpower resources still lead to a German defeat but the war is prolonged until early 1946

You're talking American tanks though. British tank evolution was not quite as good, with the problems of lost equipment at Dunkirk and elsewhere meaning that obsolete tanks were still produced for the desert campaign, rather than new models being developed. New models were developed eventually, but it was only after the end of the war that the British developed a really good tank, in the shape of the Centurion.

Compare this poor record to the much better record in producing aircraft.

 

[PeterMac]

Gentlemen,

We get lost in details (Although that is where the devil lies!).

The tank specifacations ulitmately proved academic during the 2nd world war. The quantities mattered.

The Sherman tank was slaughtered in North Africa in 1942/3, The Tiger
tanks were slaughtered in 1942/3 by the T34. The British never really had a tank at all during WII ! In 1944 and 45 the Sherman Tank in the West and the Russian Tank T34 reigned supreme becasue they vastly outnumbered the German Tanks, Tiger, Leopard etc. Numbers not Specifications counted! History constantly reminds us that numbers not high spec weapons count (until the 1990 Iraq war!) Custers last stand comes to mind...

Where are the counter factuals that this forum is all about?

 

[Larrikin]

British tank production

You're talking American tanks though. British tank evolution was not quite as good, with the problems of lost equipment at Dunkirk and elsewhere meaning that obsolete tanks were still produced for the desert campaign, rather than new models being developed. New models were developed eventually, but it was only after the end of the war that the British developed a really good tank, in the shape of the Centurion.

Compare this poor record to the much better record in producing aircraft.

The Brits problems were more from the fact that their tank development system wasn't a system, but a clusterf*ck. The only tank producer of the inter war period, Vickers, produced only one tank during the war, and that was a speculative design originally knocked back by the powers that be because it was designed by the "merchants of death".

Also, the Brits did produce several good tanks during the war, but were handicapped by their doctrine. The Churchill was extremely good at what it did, and in many ways was the best of the WWII breakthrough tanks. Finally, in late '44 they introduced the Comet, which was the ultimate expression of the cruiser concept, and it too was very good.

 

[NHBL]

Both sides have tanks in quantity for teh Great War...

To get more armored development, here's one possibility:
The Germans were also working on ways to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Have them develop a decent tank about the same time the British do, and build some. They get wind of the British tank offensive, and meet them with their own tanks. (Or by one of those coincidences that war is full of, both deploy at the same time.)

Or--anotehr possibility--the German tanks are developed in haste at the discovery that the British are planning them--but they are designed specificly for tank killing as well as breakthroughs.

The first battle leacvves the field strewn with burning tanks. There are a few more tank battles--enough to learn for work in the inter-war years