No WWII Military Developments

[Carl Schwamberger]

Assuming no nazi party comes to power & consequently WWII does not occur: What would be the shape of military matters circa 1950?

A. Aside from the Sino Japanese War & the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, or the Spanish Civil War what other wars might occur 1934-1950?

B. What are the likely doctrinal developments of the major nations militaries?

C. What are the likely weapons developments of the major nations militaries?

D. What nations would expand or contract their militaries?

At this point the most likely large war would be a possible expansion of the Sino Japanese war to include other major nations like the US or Britain. Alternately a armistice or even a peace treaty is forced on Japan & China & both plot and prepare for Round II.

[OpanaPointer]

Well, use of TV and radar would have come along regardless, so "guided" bombs would have been inevitable.

[maltesefalcon]

I would foresee at least some of these:

Deeper involvement of Soviets in China vs Japan. Specifically, more aid to Mao's forces in an attempt to push both the Nationalists and Japanese out; then form a Communist state much sooner than IRL. If not the entire country, perhaps a partition as in Korea/Vietnam.

Japan would be unlikely to provoke any military engagements vs. European powers or USA, without Germany to aid them. But they would still need resources to prop up their economy. Perhaps this would lead to a major war between USSR and Japan.

Soviet incursions in Finland and the Baltic region.

A long period of insurrection and unrest vs colonialism in Africa, SE Asia and Pacific. Attempts by Soviets to aid Communist factions in some of these as well.

Finally, major upheavals in the Middle East as IRL. But this time UK and France have not been bled white by war and take a much harder line on any attempts at self-government.

US remains an economic powerhouse but does not become a military superpower as a result of war. UK, Germany, France and USSR all have strong economies due to no destructive war. As such US influence in European affairs is significantly diminished. US becomes more isolationist and only focuses on events which directly affect their interests. So no UN, no NATO.

As far as weapons, the most obvious target would be nuclear bombs. I believe the state of technology and political uncertainty meant that their development was inevitable. However, the gestation period could be longer-perhaps another five years. Probably the same for missile development.

[Kingfish]

The concept of mechanized warfare would not see it's trial by fire, so whatever doctrine the major powers had pre-WW2 would likely persist.

[maltesefalcon]

The concept of mechanized warfare would not see it's trial by fire, so whatever doctrine the major powers had pre-WW2 would likely persist.

Perhaps not the massed Panzer divisions, but there were earlier battles in Spain and Khalkin Gol using tanks. The Allies had used them widely in the laters years of WW1 as well. Most of the major powers had embraced the idea of armoured warfare to some extent by fall 1939.

[Carl Schwamberger]

There was a lot of resistance to the idea of massed mechanized/armored corps. Even a 'tank' division was still something to be argued about in 1939. Picking over the literature of the era I see a lot of descriptions of the new German armored divisions circa 1936-37, by foreign military observers. Judging from the literature then its not clear anyone else experiments would have moved as quickly to actual combat formations. To latter 1938 France had nothing more that a experimental amores div sponsored by the cavalry branch. The mainstream of the Army preferred to stick with independent battalions and battalion groups. The Soviet Army had its experiments & was trying to emulate the Germans for a couple years, then decided such were unnecessary & started disbanding tank divisions and corps. The US Army treated the whole thing as a hypothetical & did not establish a serious experimental unit until 1938. the Japanese stuck with a doctrine of the tank as a assault support weapon & left it at that. Italy, perhaps inspired by the Germans formed a couple tank divisions, but were very slow in designing the appropriate vehicles.

I'm thinking that lacking a unfettered Guderian the idea of massed Divisions of tanks is going to be slow to develop.

[Kingfish]

Perhaps not the massed Panzer divisions, but there were earlier battles in Spain and Khalkin Gol using tanks. The Allies had used them widely in the laters years of WW1 as well. Most of the major powers had embraced the idea of armoured warfare to some extent by fall 1939.

Embracing the idea of armored warfare is one thing, testing the idea out is quite another. It took the campaigns across Europe and Russia for both sides to realize their respective forces lacked balance, the equipment was subpar and the doctrine was entirely out of step with the tactical and strategic requirements. Even then it would take longer still for the bugs to be worked out, and not all got it right.

Without the test lab that was WW2 none of those deficiencies would become apparent.

[OpanaPointer]

The concept of mechanized warfare would not see it's trial by fire, so whatever doctrine the major powers had pre-WW2 would likely persist.

Mechanized warfare had proven itself in the US prior to Pearl Harbor. Patton kicked butt and names were taken. It would have been slower, of course, but the horse was effectively out by 1941.

[Kingfish]

Mechanized warfare had proven itself in the US prior to Pearl Harbor. Patton kicked butt and names were taken. It would have been slower, of course, but the horse was effectively out by 1941.

Define "proven itself".
How does a totally new concept of warfare prove itself in stateside maneuvers?

[OpanaPointer]

The cavalry got its ass handed to it. Marshal was impressed.

Oh, and internal combustion wasn't "totally new".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Maneuvers

[Carl Schwamberger]

The debates about the utility or importance of mechanization were largely settled in the 1920s. I spent some years picking through the military journals of the era & by the 1930s the debate was not over the need to mechanize but the details of how. The nuances of motorized vs mechanized, the right mix of AT weapons and who controlled them, should the light reconnaissance vehicles in the infantry division still be controlled by the cavalry corps... ect... People were intrigued by the four German armored divisions of 1936-38 and their mass maneuvering, but other than the Red Army no one else was rushing to emulate them, the French Cavalry arm established a experimental unit, the Brits talked about it, the Italians discussed it, the Japanese & US Army established some experimental units that barely qualified as brigades. What the Soviet army did was largely in secret, but the Germans maneuvered their armored divisions in full view of the foreign officers attending the German military schools or on exchange programs with the German army. As 1938 spun out the level of interest grew to the point where others seriously started organizing a future armored division & the French allowed the Cavalry to start reorganizing into a completely armored or mechanized arm. In the case of the Soviet Army the interest was actually reversed and massed armored or mechanized formations were being disbanded.

...
Mechanized warfare had proven itself in the US prior to Pearl Harbor. Patton kicked butt and names were taken. It would have been slower, of course, but the horse was effectively out by 1941.

This was after the proof of concept in Poland. The several armored corps, made ten feet tall by propaganda, caused the worlds armies to come to Jesus. From about 20 September 1939 everyone was ethusiastically organizing their own version of what they thought a Panzer Division was. I very strongly suspect that without the German rearmament of OTL and the accompanying Guderian school (he was not the only tank fanatic in the Wehrmacht) we'd not in the 1940s have seen multiple armored divisions in anyones army, outside the USSR. And, those may have still been disbanded with Tugachevskies death. Even experiments would have been slimmer absent the German Panzerwaffe of 1935-39.

Even other wars might not have led directly to massed tank divisions. The Sino Japanese war inspired no one to build phalanxes of tanks. The Japanese went for a modern air force and massed bombers, they built landing craft and amphib transports beyond anyone elses dreams of the interwar years. They set out tactical doctrines that emphasized infiltration, speed, light infantry maneuver, and shock while dismissing the old European doctrines of the Great War blood bath. It was not like the Japanese were stuck in the past or similar. They adopted every new cutting edge thing that looked like it could help them. But they did not act on creating a large armored corps. They had good reasons not to, but the point here is a large regional war of several years did not produce massed tank formations. We can't expect any other wars that might occur to automatically lead quickly to such.

[Kingfish]

The cavalry got its ass handed to it. Marshal was impressed.

Again, stateside maneuvers and not actual combat. Wind tunnel tests do not prove an airplane can fly.

Oh, and internal combustion wasn't "totally new".

Internal combustion engines were used to power the Royal Tank Regiment in WW1. Do you consider that mechanized warfare?

[OpanaPointer]

Well, okay then.

[Carl Schwamberger]

to change the subject a bit; absent nazi Germany & a European imbroglio, how long does the sino Japanese War drag out, & what are the two or three most likely ways it ends?

My take is Japan is bankrupt circa 1942 & forced to negotiate something with the KMT government. At some point the US and Britain would be fed up and reduce Japans credit, crippling any chance of dragging on the war.

[maltesefalcon]

The war could have continued for decades a la Vietnam provided there were no outside influences.

However the possibility of long-term containment is quite unlikely. Sooner or later the US would feel the need to flex their muscles. There would be no takeover of French/British/Dutch colonies of course. But continued aggression in China would spark concerns that may lead to economic sanctions as IRL. That would force Japan to either back down or risk all by escalation.

As mentioned in an earler post, Stalin would likely give direct military aid to Mao. Perhaps even an invasion of bordering provinces to become a puppet sub-state.