What ever happened to Harry Truman and the A-bomb? After all 1947 is (or was,or is gonna be, I'm so confused ) the Dawn of the Nuclear age.
The last game I played (Satruday) I was threatened with tactical nuclear weapons if I destroyed a specific number of Soviet units ( A 1979 West Germany scenario). The game rules we play has rules for WMDs. With this in mind are the 1947 mind set going to let in Allied WMD?
I'm not trying to stir the pot, just really curious if anybody gave this a thought.
Nice an-al-ysis of potential models available! I love to have a lot of those in my collection!
Of course, the M-103 is one of my all-time favorites... which I believe I've mentioned a time or two...
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Tom Stockton
"Well, I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's codes?"
With Donald's typically in depth (what Tom said) of the possibilities, my skepticism has been replaced by curiosity. My initial fear was of Panzer-tediosm (which applies to anything more advanced than a Tiger IE in my book), which brings out the worst in many an otherwise reasonable gamer - ie an army of Tiger IIs and Jagdpanthers, to beat up on poor T-34s or Shermans. But big toys all round makes for a different proposition.
Just thought I would post my thoughts on what could have possibly happened if world war 2 had gone on past 1945.
If World War 2 had continued on into the late 40’s and Germany had managed to hang in there we would most likely have used the atomic bomb on Germany.
But there is one thing to remember, the delivery of the atomic bomb at that point in those years was limited to long range bomber aircraft. And towards the end of the war Germany had been making great progress in remote controlled air defense rockets. If Germany could have managed to deploy enough of these and keep the allies bombers off their back it is possible they could have regrouped esp if the insane Hitler had been killed and the army allowed to actually fight instead of being dictated on how to do things by Hitler.
Also Both Russia’s and the American big leaps in rocketry came from the capture of German scientists, so if they did not get captured by the American or Russians in the end of world war 2, the development of the allies and Russian rocket programs would be delayed for a little while making bombers and fighter planes the main way of still attacking the enemy heartland.
So America may hold a stock pile of nuke towards the end of 1945, but unless there bombers could reach Berlin and get passed an updated air defense system that was using new remote controlled and possibly radar guided missiles, nukes would possibly be limited to smaller tactical nuke type strikes.
Getting down to “serious†discussion, let us consider the possible offerings in a Wermacht ’47 series. E-100, Maus, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Tiger II, Panther IIF, and Flakpanther Coelion are already available. In fact, I feel that there is already a good inventory of German vehicle models available for combat in 1947. The allies need 1947-type vehicles more than do the Germans.
(By the way, I just realized that I haven’t included any Japanese weapons in this list. If the Germans survived until 1947, wouldn’t the continued requirements for troops in Europe have delayed the US invasion of Japan and Soviet intervention in Manchuria/China? I’m going to have to look at what the Japanese had in development at the end of the war.)
In passing, does anyone else think that the E-100 and Maus would have been better with the 12.8 cm Pak 43 L/55 than the shorter 15 cm gun?
After reviewing the excellent Panzer Tracts volumes on “Paper Panzers,†I have to make some corrections to the Wermacht ’47 list.
The VK 16.02 (second design for a 16-ton fully-tracked vehicle class) Gefechtsaufklaerer “Leopard†was a larger and improved replacement for the Panzerspaehwagen II “Luchsâ€. The major version carried the 5 cm Kw.K.39/1 L/60 in a turret. Other versions could be hypothesized.
Although production of the Panzerkampfwagen IV had ceased before the end of the war, there would probably have been survivors in service up through 1947. This allows consideration of modified versions of the Pz.Kpfw.IV:
The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H was similar to the Ausf.J, but with sloped and thicker hull armor. Retaining the same type of running gear, the tracks were wider to account for increased weight. The consensus of the Panzerkommission was that the disadvantages of greater weight and production interruption were greater than the benefits of better armor.
The Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV placed the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.J turret on a totally new hull. The armor was sloped on all surfaces and thicker than that of the Pz.Kpfw.IV. The suspension had three pairs of leaf-spring mounted roadwheels on each side with tracks based on those of the Tiger II. Series production was planned but abandoned in mid-1944 in favor of more Panthers.
The Sturmgeschutz auf Einheitsfahrgestell (Panzerjaeger mit L/70, later renamed Panzer IV lang E) used the same chassis as the Panzerkampfwagen auf Einheitsfahrgestell III/IV. This mounted the 7.5cm Pak L/70 gun in a superstructure similar to earlier Sturmgeschutze.
Late in 1944, the Panzerkommission decided to limit tank production to just three types of vehicles; the Tiger, the Panther, and the Pz 38(t) chassis. Since the Pz 38(t) was an Czech design, it didn’t fit well with German production standards. To improve this situation, a Panzer 38D was developed using the basic Pz 38(t) design but enlarged slightly (weight up to about 20 tons), improved suspension details, and German standard components. Versions included Aufklaerer 38D mit 2 cm Haengelafette, Aufklaerer 38D mit 7.5 cm AKF L/48, Jagdpanzer 38D mit 7.5 cm Pak 42 L/70, and Sturmgeschutz 38D mit 10 cm haubize 42/2. There was also a proposed version with the twin 3 cm anti-aircraft turret as mounted on the Flakpanzerwagen 604/4 “Kugelblitz“ (GHQ G149).
There was a proposed alternate design for the Jagdpanther with the engine forward and fighting compartment in back (same arrangement as Elefant/Ferdinand, but much better shaped). This mitigated the excessive length of the Jagdpanther, produced a better weight distribution, and would have been much better in close quarters. I do not know why this design was not adopted. In fact, this arrangement could be applied to any of the hypothetical German tank hunter vehicles.
The E-100 is the upper end of an entire series of rationalized armored vehicles, identified by their approximate weight. I have seen a reference to the E-1000 as “Tiger III S.†Other members included E-75, E-50, E-25, and E-10. I recently came across a drawing of an E-90 (Tiger III L) with the 12.8 cm gun. This is the only reference to an E-90 I have seen. I am reasonably certain that the “S†in Tiger III S is “schwer†or heavy and the “L†in Tiger III L is “licht†or light. Can anyone provide additional information on the E-90?
The E-75 and E-50 were considered “standard tanks†and had identical hull shape, engine, drive train (except for one gear ratio), suspension components, tracks, etc. The E-50 had lighter armor and three pairs of road wheels on each side (each pair mounted external to the hull with an integral springs and shock absorbers). It would have replaced the Panther, probably mounting the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 L/71 in Panther-Schmalturm. The E-75 had heavier armor, a lower gear ratio and four pairs of road wheels on each side. It would have replaced the Tiger II, probably mounting a 10.5 cm KwK L/63. I have seen a reference to the E-75 as “Tiger III F.†A hypothetical Panzerjäger E-50 would probably have mounted the 10.5 cm KwK L/63 and a Panzerjäger E-75 the 12.8 cm Pak 43.
The E-25 and E-10 also shared many common components. Each had large roadwheels with independent suspension and a hydraulic system to raise and lower the hull. Senger and Etterlin have a profile of a 10.5 cm KwK L/63 on the E-25 chassis, but the Panzer Tracts volume shows it with a 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/70. I believe the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71 would work. The E-10 “Hetzer†was to mount a 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48. Both were built as Panzerjäger, but for hypothetical purposes, turreted versions could be extrapolated. I would suggest the 7.5 cm Kw.K. L/70 for the turreted E-25 and the 5 cm Kw.K.L/60 for the turreted E-10. For other Jagdpanzer types, one of the 15 cm anti-aircraft guns being developed or a 5.9 inch naval gun would work for the Panzerjäger E-100.
Self-propelled gun designs included:
The 8.8 cm PaK 43 auf Panzerjäger 38(d) was an expansion of the widely-employed PzKw 38(t).
The 8.8 cm Pak 43 auf Rheinmetall-Borsig/Ardelt Selbstfahrlaffette 38(d) was an alternate version.
The 8.8 cm PaK 43 auf Krupp/Steyer Selbstfahrlaffette 38(d) was similar to the Rheinmetall-Borsig design, but used components from the Raupenschlepper Ost chassis.
A Grille series (Grille 10, Grille 15, and Grille 17/21; each identified by the weapon size in cm).
A Waffentraeger series (Waffentraeger Grosse I with a 10.5 cm L/28 howitzer, Waffentraeger Grosse II with 8.8 cm PaK 43 L/71, Waffentraeger Grosse II with 12.8 cm/L55 gun, and Waffentraeger Grosse II with 15 cm l/29.5 howitzer). I have been unable to find any record of a Waffentraeger Kleine.
For anti-aircraft defense, the Flakpanzer V with an 8.8 cm gun would be useful. The same turret would fit on the E-50 hull. An E-50 hull with twin 5.5 cm antiaircraft guns was identified as “Falke.†The “Alligator†was a twin 8.8 cm antiaircraft mount on the E-100 chassis. I would consider this as more of a semi-mobile flak tower than a fighting vehicle.
“Buffel†(buffalo) and “Bison†seem to be armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle versions of the E-50 and E-100 (or E-90). The Buffel mounted an automatic 3 cm gun; the Bison a 5.5 cm automatic gun in a main turret and MG42s in separate remote-control turrets. The drawings I have seen indicate a forward mounted engine, central main turret and infantry space in the back. To me, the Buffel is a bit too much vehicle and the Bison way overboard. I think that the E-25 chassis would have been more appropriate to this type of vehicle. (I have doubts about the historical reality of these designs. They do not appear in any of the standard references to which I have access and seem too much of a good thing. I would appreciate any clarification or additional information.)
Another questionable design is the “Schwartzwolf†(black wolf) tank. Supposedly, this was a medium (about 50-ton) tank designed exclusively for the Waffen SS, incorporating the most advanced technology (night vision, super-velocity gun, reactive armor, adjustable suspension, gas-turbine propulsion, etc.). The illustrations show a really nasty-looking vehicle with general resemblance to the E-50 and E-25 designs in the chassis but a totally different turret. According to the accompanying text, all prototypes, models, drawings, etc. were destroyed by the Germans to keep them out of the hands of the Soviets. Can anyone provide more information or confirm my suspicion that this is a fictional vehicle dreamed up by an inventive artist?
If GHQ is going to provide advanced armored vehicles for the Germans, it seems fair that the allies also receive some of the vehicles they had planned (and in many cases, produced in post-war years). Here are some of my suggestions:
GHQ has already produced an IS-3 for the Soviets. Other possibilities include the T-44 and T-54 medium tanks. Although an improvement in many ways, the T-44 was not better than the T-35 in all characteristics. The T-54 was a much better design, although a few years later. This would be my choice for a 1947 Soviet medium tank.
The Soviets also had several prototype vehicles under development at the end of the war that were then abandoned for lack of any urgent need. These could very well have been available in 1947. The Su-101 and Su-102 mounted the 100 mm D-10S gun and the 122 mm D-25-44S gun in an assault gun arrangement on a modified T-35/T-44 chassis. With the fighting compartment mounted on the rear part of the chassis, gun hang-over was not the serious problem as it was in the Su-100, etc.
The IS7 was a heavy tank design. It was very long and very low with well-shaped armor. It looked very nasty, but I have doubts about its maneuverability. Only a single prototype was built.
The British need a good main battle tank. The A41 Centurion Mk I, II, or III would do very nicely for this role. With the British discarding sabot ammunition, the Mk III’s 20-pounder gun would stand up to the larger German guns. (The Israeli Ben Gurion (GHQ IS-1) may cover the Mk III adequately, but has only two 20-pounder turrets per package.) The Brits also made combat engineer and recovery versions of the Centurion.
The A30 Avenger self-propelled anti-tank gun would be nice to have. I have never liked the appearance of the Challenger (GHQ’s UK21) with its high boxy turret.
The Black Prince (an enlarged Churchill infantry tank with 17-pdr gun) was a dead-end design and totally outclassed by the Centurion. Nonetheless, it would be interesting in some 1947 scenarios.
The Tank, Heavy Assault, Tortoise (A39) is an intriguing design. With its 32 pdr (3.7-inch) gun, it had excellent firepower but lacked any semblance of mobility. It would have been a worthy match against a JagdTiger.
The US had a large number of projects in hand at the end of the war. Most of these were cancelled at the end of hostilities but could have been produced in large numbers by a war-time American industry. Others actually entered service in small numbers.
GHQ already makes a model of the M24 Chaffee light tank. However, none of the many support vehicles based on the M24 are available:
The M41 Howitzer Motor Carriage mounted a 155 mm howitzer on a modified M24 hull. Sixty had been completed by the end of the war and saw service for some time after. The T16E1, which mounted a 4.5 inch gun on the same mount, was not produced.
The M37 Howitzer Motor Carriage mounted a 105 mm howitzer on a modified M24 hull (similar in concept to the M7 Priest). Over 300 were produced. The T38 Mortar Motor Carriage mounted a 4.2 inch mortar in a similar superstructure, but was not produced. The T96 mounted a breech-loading 155 mm mortar in a different M24-based superstructure.
The M19 Gun Motor Carriage mounted twin 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a modified M24 light tank hull. Nearly 300 were completed before the end of the war and continued in service for some time after.
The T77E1 and T85E1 were also anti-aircraft gun mounts on M24-style hulls. The T77E1 had six 0.50-inch machine guns in an enclosed mount on a standard tank hull. The T85E1 had four 20 mm cannon in a hull similar to the M19. Neither was produced in quantity.
The T6E1 was a recovery vehicle based on the M24 hull. It did not enter production.
The M75 armored personnel carrier was based on the M41 chassis rather than that of the M24, but design was started in 1945. It would fit in with the concept of 1947 European combat.
Immediately after approval of the Medium Tank M4 (Sherman), the US Army began development of a similar-sized successor. The most promising of these were the T20E3 and the T23E3, both of which were lower than the Sherman with better-angled armor and torsion bar suspension (same size wheels as M18 Hellcat, but six wheels each side). These are good-looking vehicles, appearing much like a reduced M26 Pershing. In fact, the turret of the T23 became the 76 mm gun turret of the M4s. Transmission problems and demand for quantity over quality kept the Sherman in production, but either of these could have been in mass production by mid-1944. If so, the entire range of vehicles based on the Sherman chassis would have been produced on the new chassis. A hypothetical 1947 scenario should include M20/M23 medium tanks and their derivatives.
Examples of vehicles that would have had the T20/T23 hull include equivalents of the following M4 types: up-armored “Jumbo†type with 105 mm howitzer, Duplex drive amphibious assault, with dozer blade, with mine exploder rollers, Crocodile flame thrower, with T34, T40, or T72 rocket launcher, M32 tank recovery vehicle, M36 tank destroyer with 90 mm gun (there is no need for a M10 tank destroyer since the T20/T23 already carried the 76 mm gun), M40 Gun Motor Carriage with 155 mm gun, M43 Howitzer Motor Carriage with 8 inch howitzer, T94 Mortar Motor Carriage with 240 mm howitzer, and T30 cargo carrier. The M7 Priest would not have been produced on the T20/T23 chassis. The M37 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carrier on the M24 chassis was seen as a much more effective mounting.
British types on the same hull would have included: Achilles with 17 pdr (or perhaps 20 pdr), Ark, Kangaroo, Firefly, and Scorpion.
GHQ makes a model of the M26 Pershing (T26E3) as it appeared in 1945. If the war had continued, improved versions and a series of associated vehicles would have appeared:
M26E1: Improved T54 90 mm gun; none built because of end of war.
T26E2: Infantry support version with 105 mm howitzer replacing M3 90 mm gun, built in small numbers. (I think the hull and turret could have accommodated a 155 mm howitzer.)
T26E4: Improved T15E2 90 mm gun (about 50% longer than that of M3 gun in M26); 25 built and 1,000 authorized – production halted by end of war.
T26E5: Up-armored assault design; 26 built.
M28A1: Improved M3A1 gun – post-war production version.
T29: Hull lengthened from six to eight road wheels, armor increased, more powerful engine & transmission and new larger turret with 105 mm T5 gun; only a few produced.
T30: Same hull and turret as T29 but with 155 mm gun T7; few produced.
T32: Hull lengthened to seven road wheels, armor increased and T15E1 gun fitted, more powerful engine & transmission; only a few prototypes built. T32 had cast hull front with machine gun; T32E1 had welded front hull without machine gun.
T34: Same hull and turret as T29 but with 120 mm gun T53 (same as heavy anti-aircraft gun); only a few were produced, but this led to the post-war M103 heavy tank.
T92 Howitzer Motor Carriage: 240 mm howitzer mounted on modified T32 (as M43 mounted 8-inch howitzer on modified Sherman chassis); only five built but more planned until end of war.
T93 Gun Motor Carriage: 8 inch gun mounted on same hull as T92; only two built but more planned until end of war.
T31 cargo carrier: Support for T92 and T93 but same size hull as M26; only one built but more planned until end of war.
Eventually, there would have been armored engineer and tank recovery versions of the M26.
Heavy Tank, T28 (Gun Motor Carriage T95): 105 mm T5E1 gun mounted in the hull of a wicked-looking assault vehicle with dual tracks. This was even more massive than the Jagdtiger. The chassis could very well have carried a 120 mm or 150 mm gun.
Not a vehicle, but the US was working on a 90 mm anti-tank gun near the end of the war. This was an interesting design with the split trails pivoting around to mate at the muzzle for towing. The British had designs for a 20 pdr and a 32 pdr anti-tank gun. All of these would have been massive (on a scale of the German 8.8 cm Pak 43/41), requiring a large towing vehicle. GHQ already makes the Pak 43/41 and the Soviet 100 mm anti-tank gun.
Don S.
Last edited by Donald M. Scheef on Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you are assuming 'no nukes', then US Tank development would have been in 5th gear in late 1945...not 1st gear like it turned out. The Pershing would have been phased out & the M46 developed much sooner than it really happened...so all post-45 'Pershings' should really be based on the M46 chassis. The T42/M47 project would have been similarly accelerated as well, & it's possible the prototypes would have been available in small numbers in late 1947
I have noticed several postings on the topic of the use of nuclear weapons in a 1947 scenario. I think that we need to assume that the Manhattan Project was either unsuccessful or abandoned due to cost in order to get a viable extension of the war. Regardless of speculation in some articles, it was totally out of the question that either Germany or Japan could have developed nuclear weapons in this time scale to offset the US. The German reactor program could not even achieve criticality, much less approach the power level required to produce enough plutonium for a warhead. The raw material and energy requirements for a U-235 enrichment plant were also beyond the capability of any of the Axis countries.
Only the US had the luxury of a massive economy that could both produce immense numbers of guns, tanks, aircraft, and ships and at the same time develop an entirely new class of weapon. Given the assumption that the US did not develop a nuclear weapon in 1945 and that the Germans survived until this time, a 1947 land war in Europe becomes at least an interesting hypothesis.
Also, forget about “smaller tactical nukes†in 1947. The tactical nuclear warhead was a much later development that could not have been built by any nation (including US) before the introduction of solid-state (transistor) electronics. The nuclear weapons that had to be lugged around by a B-29 were the smallest that could be made by any country in 1947. As far as the Germans are concerned; if they couldn’t build a “Fat Man†or “Little Boy†type nuclear device, they could not have built a smaller one either.
The closest the Germans or Japanese could have come to a “nuclear†weapon by 1947 was a radiological device (“dirty bombâ€) containing fission products or activated materials (cobalt-60, for example) from a relatively small reactor. This kind of weapon is much more suited to terrorizing civilian populations than in deterring dedicated military personnel. Chemical weapons (the Germans were the only country with the ability to produce organo-phosphate neurotoxins) or biological weapons (the Japanese had some nasty research facilities in China) would have been more effective than radiological weapons.
Donald M. Scheef wrote:I have noticed several postings on the topic of the use of nuclear weapons in a 1947 scenario. I think that we need to assume that the Manhattan Project was either unsuccessful or abandoned due to cost in order to get a viable extension of the war. Regardless of speculation in some articles, it was totally out of the question that either Germany or Japan could have developed nuclear weapons in this time scale to offset the US. The German reactor program could not even achieve criticality, much less approach the power level required to produce enough plutonium for a warhead. The raw material and energy requirements for a U-235 enrichment plant were also beyond the capability of any of the Axis countries.
Only the US had the luxury of a massive economy that could both produce immense numbers of guns, tanks, aircraft, and ships and at the same time develop an entirely new class of weapon. Given the assumption that the US did not develop a nuclear weapon in 1945 and that the Germans survived until this time, a 1947 land war in Europe becomes at least an interesting hypothesis.
Also, forget about “smaller tactical nukes†in 1947. The tactical nuclear warhead was a much later development that could not have been built by any nation (including US) before the introduction of solid-state (transistor) electronics. The nuclear weapons that had to be lugged around by a B-29 were the smallest that could be made by any country in 1947. As far as the Germans are concerned; if they couldn’t build a “Fat Man†or “Little Boy†type nuclear device, they could not have built a smaller one either.
The closest the Germans or Japanese could have come to a “nuclear†weapon by 1947 was a radiological device (“dirty bombâ€) containing fission products or activated materials (cobalt-60, for example) from a relatively small reactor. This kind of weapon is much more suited to terrorizing civilian populations than in deterring dedicated military personnel. Chemical weapons (the Germans were the only country with the ability to produce organo-phosphate neurotoxins) or biological weapons (the Japanese had some nasty research facilities in China) would have been more effective than radiological weapons.
Don S.
....Awful lotta "ifs" to make more "ifs" a reality...
) the Dawn of the Nuclear age.
...sigh...