AHC: How big a Britwank can WW2 get?

Germany runs essentially Schlieffen Plan Take 2, and is stopped in France/Belgium. Hitler's government is overthrown, and his conquests reversed. Italy had joined the Allies late in the war, but suffered heavy losses attempting unsuccessfully to invade Austria, and Mussolini is essentially discredited as an independent player. Meanwhile, the USSR has just barely beaten Finland in the Winter War, and is generally regarded as a de facto German ally, and thus distrusted by everyone. The USA has remained neutral, so the British (and to a lesser extent the French and Italians) are seen as essentially the defenders of the Free World against the looming Bolshevik menace, exerting a de facto hegemony over non-Communist Europe (which at this point essentially consists of everything in Europe outside of the USSR proper).

India still goes independent, and many of the colonies follow, but without WWII (and especially without the Pacific War demonstrating how hollow British promises of protection were), the dominions still tend to look to the UK as their chief protector, instead of the US. If the Japanese do act up later, the UK plays a much more prominent role in the war, with the Royal Navy contributing significant forces (instead of being mostly tied up in Europe as OTL).
 
Germany runs essentially Schlieffen Plan Take 2, and is stopped in France/Belgium. Hitler's government is overthrown, and his conquests reversed. Italy had joined the Allies late in the war, but suffered heavy losses attempting unsuccessfully to invade Austria, and Mussolini is essentially discredited as an independent player. Meanwhile, the USSR has just barely beaten Finland in the Winter War, and is generally regarded as a de facto German ally, and thus distrusted by everyone. The USA has remained neutral, so the British (and to a lesser extent the French and Italians) are seen as essentially the defenders of the Free World against the looming Bolshevik menace, exerting a de facto hegemony over non-Communist Europe (which at this point essentially consists of everything in Europe outside of the USSR proper).

India still goes independent, and many of the colonies follow, but without WWII (and especially without the Pacific War demonstrating how hollow British promises of protection were), the dominions still tend to look to the UK as their chief protector, instead of the US. If the Japanese do act up later, the UK plays a much more prominent role in the war, with the Royal Navy contributing significant forces (instead of being mostly tied up in Europe as OTL).

This is a French wank.
How about having the British guard the army group hinges at Sedan?
 
Germany runs essentially Schlieffen Plan Take 2, and is stopped in France/Belgium. Hitler's government is overthrown, and his conquests reversed. Italy had joined the Allies late in the war, but suffered heavy losses attempting unsuccessfully to invade Austria, and Mussolini is essentially discredited as an independent player. Meanwhile, the USSR has just barely beaten Finland in the Winter War, and is generally regarded as a de facto German ally, and thus distrusted by everyone. The USA has remained neutral, so the British (and to a lesser extent the French and Italians) are seen as essentially the defenders of the Free World against the looming Bolshevik menace, exerting a de facto hegemony over non-Communist Europe (which at this point essentially consists of everything in Europe outside of the USSR proper).

India still goes independent, and many of the colonies follow, but without WWII (and especially without the Pacific War demonstrating how hollow British promises of protection were), the dominions still tend to look to the UK as their chief protector, instead of the US. If the Japanese do act up later, the UK plays a much more prominent role in the war, with the Royal Navy contributing significant forces (instead of being mostly tied up in Europe as OTL).

I think this is ASB, but if the Germans are stopped in a land war with France committing the majority of the troops, why are they seen as a lesser member than Britain?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This is a French wank.
How about having the British guard the army group hinges at Sedan?

A wank is when a country does well, not necessarily when it wins the important battles. For example, having the whole of Europe descend into three centuries of insular infighting right after the Columbian Interchange would be a Native American-wank, because it would buy them time to re-populate with (hopefully) smallpox resistance.
 
Starting from where?

How about this?

PoD is the Battle of Arras.

The original plan involved an attack with 2 divisions. This was eventually reduced to 2 infantry and 2 armoured batallions.

ITTL the attack has the tanks supported by 2 infantry brigades plus artillery.
Rommel's division takes heavier casualties, the British have more time to evacuate their heavy equipment.

Knock on effects: Less time spent churning out existing designs to replace lost kit, leading to quicker introductions of next generation equipment.

The Channel Islands are not evacuated but are siezed with an airborne invasion and barge borne amphibious assault. Most of the Garrison, including the Commanding Officer, A.E. Percival, are captured. The battle helps to dispel the invasion scare altogether by the end of 1940.

Due to the damage inflicted on the German airborne arm, Crete holds, and Rommel is shot down on his way back to the Front in Operation Crusader.
The North Africa campaign ends in May 1942, and the Americans enter the war in Europe with the invasion of Sicily, and the British manage to evacuate Singapore and hold Rangoon.
 
A Brit wank is easy - create a POD that start the rearmament process and rebuilding of the Army at least 12 month earlier

Questions in the House of Commons on 28 November 1938

Sir P. Harris asked the Prime Minister whether this country is, in certain circumstances, committed to send an expeditionary force to France; and whether, as a result of his visit to Paris, there has been any increase in such commitments?

The Prime Minister answered "The answer to both parts of the question is in the positive"

— Hansard Vol 342, 28 November 1938.

So by April 1940 Britain will have 20 - 25 Infantry Divisions (not 8) and 2000 to 4000 tanks (not 500 odd) and the greater % of these will be Matilda II or Valentine types and not 'Machine gun tanks' and he balance of these forces deployed to France and hopefully in an improved TL Belgium as well

Artillery, Radio, Aircraft, engine, Ammunition factories will have had an extra 12 months to start ramping up

For example one of the delays in producing longer gun barrels was a shortage of longer lathes and certain cutting tools - another 12 months of development headstart on the industry side and we would see much less of a delay for things like better anti tank guns, Directors for warships, Radios, Engines etc

There will still be teething problems and skill shortages but again a 12 month headstart means these issues are ironed out sooner.

Also playing hardball with both Germany earlier might give them pause - giving more time for britain and France to rearm

Also it seems that Britian seriously hamstrung itself earlier in the war by trying to assist those nations that would not help themselves (Belgium, Holland, Norway, Greece and to some extent France) - so make a maximum effort to see that they too carry out a a sort of Neutral rearmament and/or agree to receive military assistance in good time and not as in most cases after the 11th hour has passed.

In the case of France - British Officers where 'Shaken' when the realised the state of the French Army in 1939 - its difficult for us to accept today but the perception in the late 30s was that the French Army was the most powerful army in the world.

Start making changes a year or so earlier here and an awful lot gets changed / butterflied

So in short a better Britwank requires at least a strong '1941' BEF and a more organised French Army and Airforce by 1940.

A more robust policy in places like Malaya and in dealings with Thialand

A clearer pre war understanding with main dominion nations ie India, Canada, South Africa and Australia regarding the number of troops that they would be able to provide and the area of responsibility they were willing to undertake - all suffered early in the war from the impact of inter party politics (or some such) that delayed the raising and arming of troops for over seas deployment and poor liasion with Whitehall

Indeed had a fraction of the number of troops eventually provided by those nations been made available in 1940 (more than in OTL) then I believe that the events in North Africa could have been resolved far quicker not only freeing upo troops for elsewhere but possibly even butterflying certain issues

But the main change as always has to be France

No fall of France - No Vichi France campaigns
No fall of France - very possibly no Italian Entry into the war
No fall of France - No Japanese taking possession of indo China and the snowball effect that lead from this with the US
No Fall fo France - very likely with a combination of the above - more units and better quality units and leaders available for the Far East - less chance of the Japanese invading and if they did a greatly reduced chance of them being as sucessful as they were.

So ultimately a Britwank has to go hand in hand (pun intended) with a French Wank
 
Good point, my scenario was keeping it as British as possible.
Thing is, for a proper Britwank you need to get rid of the Fall of France - that's what led to the UK selling the family silver to the US and essentially handing over their previous role as global hegemon. It's pretty much impossible to come up with a PoD that still has France falling but leaves the UK coming out of WW2 stronger than if France doesn't fall.
Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the effect you're trying to have - the UK and France (being the two major imperial powers) have quite a big commonality of interest going on. So it is entirely plausible (indeed, probable) that to get the maximum Britwank effect you also need to boost the French as well.
 
A Brit wank is easy - create a POD that start the rearmament process and rebuilding of the Army at least 12 month earlier

Questions in the House of Commons on 28 November 1938

Sir P. Harris asked the Prime Minister whether this country is, in certain circumstances, committed to send an expeditionary force to France; and whether, as a result of his visit to Paris, there has been any increase in such commitments?

The Prime Minister answered "The answer to both parts of the question is in the positive"

— Hansard Vol 342, 28 November 1938.

So by April 1940 Britain will have 20 - 25 Infantry Divisions (not 8) and 2000 to 4000 tanks (not 500 odd) and the greater % of these will be Matilda II or Valentine types and not 'Machine gun tanks' and he balance of these forces deployed to France and hopefully in an improved TL Belgium as well

Artillery, Radio, Aircraft, engine, Ammunition factories will have had an extra 12 months to start ramping up

For example one of the delays in producing longer gun barrels was a shortage of longer lathes and certain cutting tools - another 12 months of development headstart on the industry side and we would see much less of a delay for things like better anti tank guns, Directors for warships, Radios, Engines etc

There will still be teething problems and skill shortages but again a 12 month headstart means these issues are ironed out sooner.

Also playing hardball with both Germany earlier might give them pause - giving more time for britain and France to rearm

Also it seems that Britian seriously hamstrung itself earlier in the war by trying to assist those nations that would not help themselves (Belgium, Holland, Norway, Greece and to some extent France) - so make a maximum effort to see that they too carry out a a sort of Neutral rearmament and/or agree to receive military assistance in good time and not as in most cases after the 11th hour has passed.

In the case of France - British Officers where 'Shaken' when the realised the state of the French Army in 1939 - its difficult for us to accept today but the perception in the late 30s was that the French Army was the most powerful army in the world.

Start making changes a year or so earlier here and an awful lot gets changed / butterflied

So in short a better Britwank requires at least a strong '1941' BEF and a more organised French Army and Airforce by 1940.

A more robust policy in places like Malaya and in dealings with Thialand

A clearer pre war understanding with main dominion nations ie India, Canada, South Africa and Australia regarding the number of troops that they would be able to provide and the area of responsibility they were willing to undertake - all suffered early in the war from the impact of inter party politics (or some such) that delayed the raising and arming of troops for over seas deployment and poor liasion with Whitehall

Indeed had a fraction of the number of troops eventually provided by those nations been made available in 1940 (more than in OTL) then I believe that the events in North Africa could have been resolved far quicker not only freeing upo troops for elsewhere but possibly even butterflying certain issues

But the main change as always has to be France

No fall of France - No Vichi France campaigns
No fall of France - very possibly no Italian Entry into the war
No fall of France - No Japanese taking possession of indo China and the snowball effect that lead from this with the US
No Fall fo France - very likely with a combination of the above - more units and better quality units and leaders available for the Far East - less chance of the Japanese invading and if they did a greatly reduced chance of them being as sucessful as they were.

So ultimately a Britwank has to go hand in hand (pun intended) with a French Wank
I agree with just about everything you've written here ...

To make it happen, to get the UK Government to commit earlier would require the perception of the French military to be radically different. The Anglo/French 'Alliance' was reliant on the British masterly of the sea, the French dominance of the Land and an air strength that matched that of Germany when combined.

For Britain to accelerate it's rearmament programme it has to either recognise that whilst on paper the French army was strong but in reality it was weak or the UK government has to be far more aggressive in nature.

If we consider the UK to be more warlike and start to properly re-arm a year or two earlier, why not also go the whole hog and invade Germany whilst it is still engaged in Poland (or shortly after). The BEF, which is now 2 or 3 three times larger than OTL, which is even more mobile and with better equipment and has the French army and the Maginot line to fall back behind if things don't go well, could quite easily make a huge incursion into German held territory and break the Germans before the war has even properly started.
 
Blunted Sickle is a Britwank, but only because of the relatively terrible performance and luck of the allies OTL was a total Britscrew.
 
Blunted Sickle is a Britwank, but only because of the relatively terrible performance and luck of the allies OTL was a total Britscrew.
I always fail to see what LUCK had to do with Sickle Cut ... to me luck in battle is something that happens to change the course of the battle that is completely outside the control of either combatants. To me Sickle Cut was a calculated risk that paid off, it was planned and executed well against an alliance that contained three main parties, one of which was prepared for mobile warfare but too small to really influence the outcome, one that was not so well prepared to meet the German war machine and also too small to influence the outcome and a third that was ill prepared for anything other than a static defensive encounter but contained the majority of the forces and maintained majority control over the two smaller allies. The German gamble worked ... it wasn't luck, it was good execution of a risky plan that counted on the French being as bad as they were.
 
If we consider the UK to be more warlike and start to properly re-arm a year or two earlier, why not also go the whole hog and invade Germany whilst it is still engaged in Poland (or shortly after). The BEF, which is now 2 or 3 three times larger than OTL, which is even more mobile and with better equipment and has the French army and the Maginot line to fall back behind if things don't go well, could quite easily make a huge incursion into German held territory and break the Germans before the war has even properly started.

Or go even farther and make the war break out in 1938. Britain/France might be better able to afford a few months of phoney war before being attacked.
 
A wank is when a country does well, not necessarily when it wins the important battles. For example, having the whole of Europe descend into three centuries of insular infighting right after the Columbian Interchange would be a Native American-wank, because it would buy them time to re-populate with (hopefully) smallpox resistance.

A wank is when one country rolls the dice and it keeps landing on a six while the other country (or countries) rolls the dice and it keeps landing between one and five.

Germany between 1936 to 41/42 is an example of the former and Britain the latter.
 
As has already been mentioned the Royal Navy gets the Fleet air Arm back in the early 1930s and develops its carrier aviation capabilities which is the idea behind Astrodragon's The Whale Has Wings thread. It includes a Taranto-style attack on the German naval base at Wilhelmshaven, an enlarged attack on Taranto, the invasion of Norway being beaten, the North African campaign being wrapped up much sooner, Greece still falling but Crete remaining in Allied hands from which they invade the Dodecanese, and the war with Japan being significantly altered because of all this.

On the land front keeping the Experimental Mechanised Force active past 1929 would be a good idea, they were already roughly on the right track and if lucky enough to have the right officers put in charge would go a fair way to helping develop a decent indigenous combined-arms doctrine and the equipment needed for it. Some of the various threads that looked at this included Pedmore's, Sharlin's one, KillerT's, and a second slightly later one by Pedmore. Iain also did an interesting variation building off that one based on equipment that Vickers develops for the Experimental Armoured Force, what the EMF was renamed in its second year, with some very nice computer models here.

The British army was already heavily motorised and mechanised in our timeline, having them continue the EAF could bring some serious improvements. Now it's certainly not going to be enough to stop the fall of France but it could change a few things, one of my favourite points of divergence being the Battle of Arras like Some Bloke mentioned. The Germans had awful trouble dealing with the British Matilda tanks with their 7th Panzer Division in serious danger of becoming unstuck, it was only thanks to their commander Rommel chivvying the 88mm gunners to form a defensive line that staved off disaster. If the British have some self-propelled guns to suppress them though even without improved tanks it could turn into a rout. IIRC Rommel's second in command who was by him was seriously injured during the battle, with a few extra British guns perhaps Rommel himself is killed? They still have to retreat back to UK eventually but with the Germans having suffered a bloody nose they're slightly more cautious which allows the British to evacuate their heavy equipment, in turn leading to a reduced invasion scare and quicker switch-over to start manufacturing new equipment.

Speaking of Rommel having bad luck with some shell splinters Cymraeg's timeline Splinters - Rommel Dies At Alam Halfa does as the name rather suggest have Rommel dying at the Battle of Alam Halfa courtesy of an RAF bomb. The confusion this causes for the Germans and opportunities it gives to the British Eighth Army mean that things do not go so well for the Afrika Korps.

And for the Far East Riain had some good ideas over in the thread where Emperor Palpatine was asking how if possible was it for the British to decisively win in Malaya and Singapore. The main change was Air Marshal Brooke-Popham being made civil/military governor of the Straits Settlements, what's nowadays Singapore, and High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States that along with the Unfederated Malay States made up British Malaya, nowadays mainland Malaysia. Brooke-Popham apparently did well in a similar job in Kenya and the guy he'd be replacing Shenton Thomas was by most accounts bloody useless. The troops they had in our timeline should have been able to make a much better showing of things if handled more effectively, a few changes and things become much more difficult for the Japanese.


For the ultimate Britwank I suppose you could try stitching them all together. The EMF continuing means that the British give the 7th Panzer Division a good kicking, also killing Rommel, before retiring back across the English Channel. With an expanded Fleet Air Arm the Kriegsmarine and Regia Marina are made short work of, Norways holds, likewise Crete and supplies to North Africa are interdicted. The improved armoured units in North Africa crush the Italians even more quickly in Operation Compass and advance on to meet the lead units of the Afrika Korps arriving in North Africa. In the battle the German commander, whoever was sent in place of the dead Rommel, is killed by a lucky shell and they're defeated. The troops this frees up, a decent governor in the person of Brooke-Popham, the troops already out there being trained effectively, and the improved Fleet Air Arm all combine to throw an incredibly large spanner in Imperial Japan's dreams of a Southern Resource Area. Invasion of Italy in 1942 and the Normandy invasion in 1943 anyone?
 
I always fail to see what LUCK had to do with Sickle Cut ... to me luck in battle is something that happens to change the course of the battle that is completely outside the control of either combatants. To me Sickle Cut was a calculated risk that paid off, it was planned and executed well against an alliance that contained three main parties, one of which was prepared for mobile warfare but too small to really influence the outcome, one that was not so well prepared to meet the German war machine and also too small to influence the outcome and a third that was ill prepared for anything other than a static defensive encounter but contained the majority of the forces and maintained majority control over the two smaller allies. The German gamble worked ... it wasn't luck, it was good execution of a risky plan that counted on the French being as bad as they were.
Thing is, both the French and Germans were committed to risky plans - the Germans to thrusting through the Ardennes and letting their Panzer spearheads shoot forwards without worrying about their rear, and the French to placing essentially their entire reserve on the front line as far from France itself as they could. I'd say that you could make a decent case that the Germans were lucky that the French committed to such a bad plan - and one which was so well suited to the German plan, placing as it did the cream of their armies within the planned German encirclement! That isn't something you can honestly plan for or predict, so I'd argue that it was to some extent luck.

I'm not saying at all that the French would not be in deep, deep trouble without that German luck - in A Blunted Sickle I've had them keep the original reserve but it's only luck on their part (in the form of an order to some blocking forces being delayed long enough that it turns into an order to cut off the German spearhead which is some way away from the Anglo-French attack) that lets them hold. Had this order been transmitted more promptly (and to be fair 3 days was the average time for orders to get from GQG to Corps commanders!) the Germans would probably still have won the battle. But winning as cheaply as they did was IMHO luck.
 
A wank is when one country rolls the dice and it keeps landing on a six while the other country (or countries) rolls the dice and it keeps landing between one and five.

Germany between 1936 to 41/42 is an example of the former and Britain the latter.

While all of Britain's allies rolled 1s
 
Top