Better tanks in WW2 without ROB intervention /or Drakian shit/

ATP

Well-known member
Basically - you must deliver scenario in which one or more country get better tanks during WW2 without supernatural help.

My scenario:
In 1935 french intel warn their goverment,that germans plan to build medium tanks with long 75mm gun and heavy tank with 88mm gun.That was not true,but french belived,and poured their money into medium Char 1G tank with long 75mm gun,rangerinder and slopped armour.
And heavy,let say Char 2,with 90mm.

Germans,italians and soviet discovered this,and ,from 1936 work on:
1.Germans - Pz IV with 75/43 gun,Pz VI with 88/56 gun,and Stug III with 75/43 gun
2.Italians - P.40 with 75/34 gun,Semovente with 75/34,100/25 and 75/46.
3.Soviets - T.43 and KW3 tanks.

Japan start working on Type 3 tank
England - Valentine and Crusader tanks with 57mm guns.

1939 - we have germans with Pz IV 75/43,czech medium tanks with 47mm guns,STIII.Poland fall on schedule.
1940 - France have 300-400 new Char 1G tanks with 75/46 guns and prototypes of heavies with 90mm.Fall on schedule,too.
Germans start mass producing both in France for their army,Italy made some Char 1G for themselves,too.
Germans start working on PZ V

1941 - in Africa Italians hold more territory with Semoventes and few P.40 tanks.


Soviets use T.43,Kw3, germans - PzIV with 75/48 and Pz VI,french Char 1 and 2,czech medium tanks.Results - like in OTL.

1942 - Japan use Type 3 medium tank,had Type 4 prototype.Germans use Pz VA.Soviets IS1.Americans - M3 and M4 with 76mm gun.
British use Churchill and Cromwell.Italians - Semovente 75/46.

1943 - Germans use Pz.V D,first Pz VIB.
soviets T.43.85 and IS2,Italy P.43 and Semovente with 90mm gun.

1944 - Japan use Type 4 tank,Germans Pz.V F and modified PzVIB/good engine/,americans M.26,british Centurion,soviets T.44 and IS3

1945 - germans before fall use Panther II or E.50,and some E.75.soviets IS 4 ,americans M.48,british Centurions with 83mm guns.

How would it change tanks after WW2? i think,that when soviet fall,we would have NATO tanks with 140mm guns,and soviets with 152mm guns.

Fell free to deliver your own scenarios.
 
How would it change tanks after WW2? i think,that when soviet fall,we would have NATO tanks with 140mm guns,and soviets with 152mm guns.

Fell free to deliver your own scenarios.
Obligatory US heavies that were late for WW2:
Just 140mm? One of those has a 155mm gun...
However such guns were kinda impractical for tank vs tank combat at the time due to the terrible rate of fire without autoloaders, so others had 90-120mm guns.
 
Obligatory US heavies that were late for WW2:
Just 140mm? One of those has a 155mm gun...
However such guns were kinda impractical for tank vs tank combat at the time due to the terrible rate of fire without autoloaders, so others had 90-120mm guns.

Here,at least T.29 would be mass produced and facing german E-75 in 1945.
Maybe others,too.

P.S do you think,that germans,italians or japaneese with better tanks would fight longer? soviets,british,and americans would have better ones,too.
Maybe it change nothing?

The IJA wins the power struggle with their true enemy, the IJN.

Here they could fight USA tanks on Philippines and soviets in Manchuria.Which would change nothing,but - would be more cool.

P.S i forget about czech and hungarians.In OTL czech produced for germans,and made Turan tank prototype for Hungary.
Here,they would produce medium Skoda tanks for germans from 1939,T.25 with autoloader,
And made for Hungary prototype of Turan 3,which they would mass produce,later replacing with T.25.
Notching would change,of course.
 
Here,at least T.29 would be mass produced and facing german E-75 in 1945.
Maybe others,too.

P.S do you think,that germans,italians or japaneese with better tanks would fight longer? soviets,british,and americans would have better ones,too.
Maybe it change nothing?
Being on defense in the late war, it wouldn't help them, especially when they had material and fuel shortages anyway, and those later, heavier tanks sure did require hefty support.
 
Being on defense in the late war, it wouldn't help them, especially when they had material and fuel shortages anyway, and those later, heavier tanks sure did require hefty support.
So,nothing change during WW2.Later probably too,becouse we do not have big tank battles except Middle East.
But,we could have tanks with 140mm guns in 1990,and maybe with railguns now !
 
So,nothing change during WW2.Later probably too,becouse we do not have big tank battles except Middle East.
But,we could have tanks with 140mm guns in 1990,and maybe with railguns now !
It's less about caliber now, more engineering of ammo and armor. After all, one of the tanks there has a 155mm already. But the general principle is that if a smaller gun with smaller, easier to load and store ammo can get through enemy armor, you may want the smaller option as long as possible.
 
A 14cm cannon was looked at for the Leopard II in the early '90s.
It was to have an autoloader.
Had there been a need, 135-155 gunned tanks would had been fielded around 1990 in OTL without any ASB's flapping around.
 
Here they could fight USA tanks on Philippines and soviets in Manchuria.Which would change nothing,but - would be more cool.
Depends the timing and nature of the divergence. If Japan won Khalkin Ghol or at least did well enough to think they could do better next time their bored warmongers might have started something on that border instead of holding the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Depends the timing and nature of the divergence. If Japan won Khalkin Ghol or at least did well enough to think they could do better next time their bored warmongers might have started something on that border instead of holding the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.
Not possible,they started war in China in 1937,fighting with soviets started in 1938.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top