Panzer Development after a CP Victory

[GoldenState]

Assuming a late war CP victory, the tank would have been a proven weapon (even if overcome) and Germany would have a number of substantial client/allied states that would in time economically stabilize (this is not Nazi Germany, the client states could have a viable existence as the Warsaw Pact members did).

Panzers and aircraft would be important exports as well as items necessary for Germany's defense. Based on a battalion per corps and a battalion per Army, I think Germany would need about 4,000 panzers per decade. Her combined allies and client states about half as many. For political and economic reasons (lower cost labor, convenience to materials and market) I also think there would be pressure for a Ukrainian based production center.

In this case, I think doctrine would be tied to infantry support and result in a 1920's panzer conceptually along the lines of a Vickers 6 ton rooted Japanese Type 89A. The 1930's with something resembling a somewhat larger 35t with a 50mm gun (I think they would want a better soft target bang than a 37mm). Maybe supplemented by an again somewhat larger support version with a 75mm howitzer.

Given the more leisurely development time and an opportunity to view the limitations of a 75mm howitzer, I think the very late 1930's and early 40's would see a Panzer III analogue with short 50mm gun (L43) and a support tank significantly larger than the Panzer IV with a 105mm howitzer. Maybe the original battalions would be fleshed out to brigades.

[pugsville]

If the Central Powers win ww1, Germany would rule most of the continental Europe. Their Army would be pretty unchallenged. The French army reduced, Russian is civil war, Austria tottering. Civil disorder and unrest would deb the focus and maybe the Navy.

Who would the German Army be gearing up to fight?
Who could the Germans possibly export to?

[GoldenState]

France would recover in time. Not so large as Germany, but crazy bastards living right next to you.

On a larger scale, Russia would either be the Soviet Union or something along the lines of Putin's Russia - nothing to be taken lightly in either case. Besides, the military is very strong in TTL's society. I think it will tend to be larger than we might expect regardless.

As for military exports - Ukraine, The Ottoman Empire, Hungary (assuming the Austria-Hungary eventually breaks up, Lesser Poland, whatever they call the Baltic, Finland, the parts of South America who can afford German quality, China etc.

I do suspect that by 1930, Greater Germany would include Austria and Bohemia-Moravia by peaceful (though not really voluntary in terms of Czech territory) union.

[Tim Smith]

Victorious armies are often slaves to tradition.

Having won the Great War, I think the Imperial German Army would do what the French Army did after WW1 - embrace new technology, but shoehorn it into their existing traditional arms of service and force structure.

I think this would result in Germany following the French and British historical route of having slow, heavily armoured infantry tanks for the infantry, and fast, lightly armoured cavalry tanks for the cavalry. Not the historical combined-arms Panzerwaffe of 1939.

This would result in tanks almost identical to the Leichte Traktor, Grosstraktor I, II & III, and Neubaufahrzeug (NbFz) V. (The names would be different.) For the cavalry, light tanks like the LKA I and LKA II are highly likely.

Beyond this point it's difficult to speculate, but although something like the Panzer II is possible, I think that 'universal' tanks like the Panzer III and IV are less likely. I think the infantry would be interested in a heavy breakthrough tank like the Churchill and the cavalry something fast and light like the Crusader.

[stg 44]

Victorious armies are often slaves to tradition.

Having won the Great War, I think the Imperial German Army would do what the French Army did after WW1 - embrace new technology, but shoehorn it into their existing traditional arms of service and force structure.

Isn't this what they did historically? German panzer forces developed as an additional tool to the infantry division initially until they opted to create mobile exploitation units based on AFVs instead of horses; they needed the technology to catch up to replace cavalry, as that's what Panzer divisions really were: modern useful cavalry instead of the less useful horse based units of WW1.

Based on the discussions going on historically about armor in the German army I think they would have hit on things just the same, while the French and British would have taken their historical routes too; it wasn't that all sides won or lost, they just developed their existing WW1 experience into a modern version of it by 1939, so the Germans didn't learn anything extra just by losing; in fact the von Seeckt post-WW1 experience was largely jettisoned by 1939 anyway, as his small, professional, fast acting military of 300k men ideal was abandoned by the 1930s:
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Steel-Devel ... 0801440742
http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Disaster-Th ... h+doctrine

Victory though historically was won or lost on the strategic level, not the operational or tactical one, so victory or defeat wouldn't change the mindset of the generals about the operational or tactical levels, because they would blame the strategic one for the outcome.

I think this would result in Germany following the French and British historical route of having slow, heavily armoured infantry tanks for the infantry, and fast, lightly armoured cavalry tanks for the cavalry. Not the historical combined-arms Panzerwaffe of 1939.

This would result in tanks almost identical to the Leichte Traktor, Grosstraktor I, II & III, and Neubaufahrzeug (NbFz) V. (The names would be different.) For the cavalry, light tanks like the LKA I and LKA II are highly likely.

Beyond this point it's difficult to speculate, but although something like the Panzer II is possible, I think that 'universal' tanks like the Panzer III and IV are less likely. I think the infantry would be interested in a heavy breakthrough tank like the Churchill and the cavalry something fast and light like the Crusader.

Combined arms though was a major German tradition in the military and task appropriate combined arms units were built with the Stosstruppen during WW1 historically, so that experience about what worked was already there; the German army isn't going to ignore that lesson, especially if something like Cambrai happens in this scenario. The historical debate over armor after WW1 in Germany heavily emphasized the need for combined arms forces with armor due to the limitations of what armor could achieve on its own, which the Germans were painfully aware of from both sides; the Allies did not have the combat experience of being on the receiving end of armor attacks on a wide scale, so they didn't appreciate the limitations as much as the Germans did, who spent a lot of effort into exploiting its weaknesses. So when coming up with an offensive doctrine for armor they realized the critical need of having combined arms units with armor to make them viable. If anything they would probably develop the overly armor heavy units of 1939-40 anyway until they learn from experience they need more infantry.

Also you misrepresent historical German armor development; the Pz III and IV were NOT universal weapons, rather they had different roles, the III being an AT/exploitation AFV, while the IV was an AP/AT suppression vehicle to support the fast, lighter Pz III in its maneuver mission. The Germans developed the StuG as an infantry support weapon rather than having a turreted AFV due to shortages of AFVs all around throughout the war; in this scenario they would have the resources to build up Panzer divisions AND infantry support AFVs, which would probably be something like the StuG and/or Pz IV, as the Pz IV was basically the German version of a support AFV along the lines of the Matilda, just better. They were roughly the same weight too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

[Baltasar]

The development of StuGs was not entirely a matter of shortage of other AFVs. The StuG in itself was proposed as a purely infantry support vehicle. It was the turreted tank group around Guderian and other Generals who didn't like the idea of having to to divert production capacity to the StuG production.

http://www.amazon.de/ZEITGESCHICHTE-Stu ... 3881896392

[stg 44]

I thought Guderian supported the StuG idea when he was inspector general of armor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Gud ... red_Troops
Maybe his opposition was political because their production was removed from his authority by the artillery branch?

[steinmetz]

Guderian was certainly not against Sturmgeschütze during the war ,rather the contrary. He wanted them to be also used in an AT role.

[Tim Smith]

Also you misrepresent historical German armor development; the Pz III and IV were NOT universal weapons, rather they had different roles, the III being an AT/exploitation AFV, while the IV was an AP/AT suppression vehicle to support the fast, lighter Pz III in its maneuver mission. The Germans developed the StuG as an infantry support weapon rather than having a turreted AFV due to shortages of AFVs all around throughout the war; in this scenario they would have the resources to build up Panzer divisions AND infantry support AFVs, which would probably be something like the StuG and/or Pz IV, as the Pz IV was basically the German version of a support AFV along the lines of the Matilda, just better. They were roughly the same weight too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning. What I meant by 'universal' was that the Panzer III and IV were not confined to infantry support functions only, or to cavalry functions of reconnaissance and rear area penetration only, but could do both. While the British Matilda II could only do infantry support, and the Cruiser tanks could only do reconnaissance and rear area penetration. They were both failures whenever used in the 'wrong' role - the Cruiser tanks lacked the armour for infantry support, and the Matilda was too slow for reconnaissance and rear area penetration.

Also the Panzer IV was not a breakthrough tank like the Matilda. The Matilda had the armour to go toe to toe with the enemy from machine gun range, the Panzer IV was intended to stand off at long range and lob HE shells from its howitzer. The Durchbruchwagen was closer to the Matilda II in function.

[pugsville]

Without defeat the German Army would not have studied their world war One experience so exhaustively. (though their study was very operational and tactically focused). Any sort of Victory would also meant imposing a basically military Government of occupation throughout most of Europe. The costs of maintaining a very large army in repressing large amounts of populations would be pretty distracting from developing long term planning and development. Early wide spread adoption and investment in Early tanks may well lead to bad quickly dated designs.

A Cold War With Britain could lead to many resources being spent of developing a Navy to compete with the Royal Navy.

It's really hard to see the full effects of a large scale what if on technical tank design 20 years later. MJaybe they have the resources and the focus, maybe they dont.

Personally I feel a victorious Germany in ww1 leads to an large Iron Empire run by the Military imposing it's will on German and large area outside it which would be very likely to collaspe long before any outside conflict became a factor.

[GoldenState]

I wouldn't be too sure about inordinate cost and collapse. The Soviet Union had a much worse political and economic system than the Imperial Germans.

The Soviets had a scale of forces dictated by preparation for WWIII. In the air, sea, land and space.

The cost of that and the inevitable basket case their internal economy decayed into finished them. The Imperial German model and situation just doesn't fit that extreme.

The Germans just need to be big enough not to be messed with by client governments and hold their own with Britain regarding the nonland aspects of the balance of power. Not nearly such a daunting task and they would actually have a reasonably productive economic base to support the effort.

And remember, Imperial Germany wasn't Nazi Germany. There might actually have been benefits associated with being part of its international system (certainly in comparison with the Soviet model). In addition their political system had real democratic features, they could evolve based on public reaction to the lifestyle cost of excessive militarism.

[pugsville]

During WW1 the military effectively seized power and sidelined both the Emperor and the Parliament (which was close to powerless, never shaped policy). The German Empire had political structure problems, following a victory in ww1 it would be governing many area with immense social unrest. The German Empire when faced with civil unrest typically responded with brutally and repression. The Generals were not capable of subtlety or patience or understanding of civil issues.

I don't See the German Empire holding on for 20 years. It would be facing a whole range of challenges politically, socially and it's leadership would have nothing to offer but bayonets.

[Baltasar]

During WW1 the military effectively seized power and sidelined both the Emperor and the Parliament (which was close to powerless, never shaped policy). The German Empire had political structure problems, following a victory in ww1 it would be governing many area with immense social unrest. The German Empire when faced with civil unrest typically responded with brutally and repression. The Generals were not capable of subtlety or patience or understanding of civil issues.

I don't See the German Empire holding on for 20 years. It would be facing a whole range of challenges politically, socially and it's leadership would have nothing to offer but bayonets.

The examples you refer to where during 1848, some 70 years prior to the assumed end of the Great War. And in this case, almost every able bodied male citizen in Imperial Germany would've served within the armed forces. If a populace took to the streets, it would be men who had actual combat experience, unlike 1848 when the "Revolution" was made up of all kinds of civilians.

A victorious imperial Germany would still have suffered immense casualties, had a large number of war wounded, would still face food shortages and most likely the Spanish flue... Once some sort of peace settled in, the political bickering would start again, with the Social Democrats, again, being a very large wrench in the ideas the Kaiser or his cronies might have.