What would Nazi German tanks look like if they survived to Cold War?
i dont know are you expecting me to draw a picture or some shit
>>62570778The MBT-70 was basically the Nazi-victory-timeline tank IRL.
>>62570778they wouldntgerman post-war development was largely done by clean sheet designs based on their experiences with imported tanks like the pattonit was not economically sound to try and build any of their E-series tanks when their entire economy was bombed to crap and back and needed to be rebuiltand the allies had large stocks of M47 pattons availableso by the time they had a chance to actually build anything, they would have no reason to start from leftover nazi designs, they would have been hilariously out of date in the 50s and it would be better off to start with contemporary designs as a basiswhich is why the leopard 1 isnt really based on any prior german vehicleit used the british 105mm since it was readily available and was designed in collaboration with the french, which is why it has a low weight, low armor, and high P/W ratio
>>62570778https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series#E-50_Standardpanzer
>>62570778Krupp, Daimler-Benz, Rheinmetall, etc. didn't disappear after the war. Would they look any different from a modern MBT?
>>62571305Wehrmacht doctrine and the strategic outlook is different from Bundeswehr, however
>>62570844the Leopard 1 and Marder 1 were built due to the lessons learnd in ww2. If you look at a leo 1 you can basically see a modernised panther if you squint enough.>>62571372is the doctrine different though? They evolved, yes of course, but they alos kept much of german military tradition as it showed to work execellent.
>>62571585>is the doctrine different though?very1950s Bundeswehr essentially adapted US armored doctrine, with some minor adjustmentsafter all, the US won the warand anyway, US armored doctrine by then was a war-refined version of the American version of "blitzkrieg"
>>62571599So you are saying that the US adopted the german doctrin with the Germans after the war still using the combined arms aproach much more than the US. As they contiued to use Panzergrenadiere in armoured vehicles and pretty soon in the worlds first IFV which the US only fully used in 1981 with the introduction of the bradley. The US also took a helish long time to adopt an assault rifle style weapon and was hanging on to ww2 type weapons until the introduction of the M16.
>>62571658>he US adopted the german doctrinthey adopted what they THOUGHT was German doctrine, i.e. "blitzkrieg" (the Germans never used the word themselves). they started off trying to use it, in 1943. Patton for example was a big fan.subsequently they realised it was not really feasible and they altered their doctrine. in addition to their own analysis of battles, they absorbed a lot of doctrine from the British e.g. the importance of airstrikes, infantry-tank combined-arms brigades, air supremacy, and MASSIVE firepower overmatch (all developed in North Africa)>with the Germans after the war still using the combined arms aproach much more than the USin the immediate post-war the Germans were very impressed with late-WW2 US armoured doctrine and wanted to follow, but were hampered by budgetary limitations. generally their armoured units did more or less follow US doctrine, AFAIK>they contiued to use Panzergrenadiere in armoured vehicles and pretty soon in the worlds first IFVehhnot really, because they never had enough HS.30>the US only fully used in 1981 they used M113s for that role> took a helish long time to adopt an assault rifle style weapon and was hanging on to ww2 type weapons until the introduction of the M16they adopted the M14 around the same time, that's their FAL equivalentthough an individual infantry rifle is a very tiny part of doctrine
>>62571599>after all, the US won the warThis was poor bait and you know it.
>>62571707>just a lot of cope.The HS.30 was a shit show but still an IFV unlike the M113s which are good but basic apcs even though some were upgraded with turrets which let them perform an ifv role which the US tried with prototypes but never wide spread until the introduction of the bradley. A doctrine developed by germans in WW2 with the Panzergrenadiere.>M14the M14 is ww2 type of weapon. It is basically a garand with a detachable magazine and not comparable to pistol grip assault rifles.
>>62571739was it?militarily speaking, didn't the US win the war?>>62571762>>just a lot of cope.why so butthurt?>The HS.30 was a shit show but still an IFVbut they never had enough of them, so it's pointless bringing it up>never wide spreadgo look at the TO&E of a 70s US armoured division in Germany, idiot> A doctrine developed by germans in WW2 with the Panzergrenadiereand as I said, adapted by the US, and then adapted again by the Germansbut there are many aspects to US doctrine and this is just one of them>the M14 is ww2 type of weapon>not comparable to pistol grip assault riflesopinion noted
>>62571781Nope. The Italians lost and the USSR won. Strategically the US wins because they're the only country that didn't get invaded or have its citizens vaporized into radioactive dust.
>>62571800>the USSR wonone might argue that, but as I said,>militarily speakingtheir doctrine wasn't that impressive, considering the casualties they took
>>62570778They would've gone full wynderwaffen and made the biggest (most useless) tank you've ever seen a single shot of its cannon would liquify the organs of the crew
>>62571781>HS. 30 2k+ of them were delivered which is 2k+ more IFV than the US had>never wide spread.....>and as I said, adapted by the US, and then adapted again by the Germansbut there are many aspects to US doctrine and this is just one of themso my point stands that the US adopt german doctrin and not the germans US ones
i could see them working on the entwicklung idea of standardized parts like roadwheels n shiet for a somewhat unified IFV, light tank, medium tank and heavy tank system
>>62570778>another fucking fantasy cope-adjacent thread
>>62571781>The HS.30 was a shit show but still an IFV>but they never had enough of them, so it's pointless bringing it upThe Bundeswehr got over 2000 of these shitpieces, and even for all their flaws and the corruption tainting their background, they still equipped their mechanized units with them until the Marder replaced them.
>>62570844Leopard 1 is like when a band member of a popular band goes on a solo career: its different but the DNA of the band kinda is there. In this case the Leo 1 is a fascimile of what an improved Panther would have looked like in terms of features and it still has a mid century german school of thought feel to it.
>>62570778Why are the wheels in pairs with spaces?
>>62571585>If you look at a leo 1 you can basically see a modernised panther if you squint enough.
>>62572034>the US adopt german doctrin and not the germans US ones>it's IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT COULD BE BOTH>DEUTSCHLAND UBER ALLES>2k+ more IFV than the US hadwhat, you think this is a computer game, the army with more IFVs automatically is better?and yes, 2k out of a planned 10k, hence>never widespread>>62573148>The Bundeswehr got over 2000 of these shitpiecesyeah, out of a requirement for 10,000, which is how they ended up using the M113 to fill the gap insteadthe real IFV game only began with the Marder 1
>>62573410https://www.tankarchives.ca/2022/02/a-prospective-standard-chassis.html
>>62570778>What would Nazi German tanks look like if they survived to Cold War?Like the Leopard 1 and 2.
