WI the Allies win the Battle of Arras in 1940?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)

More specifically, what if Rommel's last-ditch attempt to hold off the Allied advance (with anti-aircraft guns) fails for whatever reason, and the Allies manage to close the Peronne-Cambrai Gap? Such a victory would, in my opinion, force the Germans to try and slog their way through the Allied defenses with traditional tactics rather than Blitzkrieg, possibly giving the British and French a chance at victory on their own.

OTOH, does Operation Pike get carried out? Without the Fall of France and subsequently Operation Barbarossa, there's no reason for the Allies not to believe the USSR and the Nazis are working together (which they were to some extent). Might the Allies launch Pike in an attempt to cut the Nazis' supply lines? How does this affect Norway?

France is still lost more-or-less, but this might allow the Allies to pull back to Dunkirk and Calais instead of just Dunkirk, and thus retain a bit more equipment.

Saving heavy equipment and weapons from France will change the course of the war as Britain won`t be so fearful of invasion. A lot of decisions with adverse long term consequences, such as retaining the 2pdr AT gun in production, were made with the threat of facing invasion with no heavy weapons in mind.

Well if they can pull back a lot of 2pdrs, sure, but in actual fact the only weapons likely to get the kick are those half-cooked ideas that the home-guard got loaded with OTL. Also, the 2pdr wasn't just an anti-tank gun, it was pretty damn good against more lightly armoured stuff like half-tracks and armoured cars, oh and Japanese tanks.

What this does mean though, is that the British can throw a bit more into later campaigns.

A sucessful operation pike might be the base of an interesting ATL...

Richter von Manthofen said:

A sucessful operation pike might be the base of an interesting ATL...

Click to expand...

Yeah, true. On the one hand, it would almost completely destroy the USSR's ability to fight, and reduce Germany's oil supply to next-to-nothing, making the securing of Romania a prime objective for the European Axis. On the other hand, it would drag a third Great Power into the war, on the Axis side. The only way such a situation could get grimmer for the Allies would be if France falls (not as per OTL, though, as such a fall would end, as per OTL, any chance of Pike actually being carried out).

So the consensus is France still falls? Hmm. Disappointing. Might it convince the government to fight on after the mainland is occupied?

Richter von Manthofen said:

A sucessful operation pike might be the base of an interesting ATL...

Click to expand...

Isn't this ASB? The strategic bombing campaign against Germany, conducted, with more powerful bombers with better bases, took a few years to make an impact.

Pike reflects the Anglo-French belief/hope that the Russians were a tottering, backwards state.

Faeelin said:

Isn't this ASB? The strategic bombing campaign against Germany, conducted, with more powerful bombers with better bases, took a few years to make an impact.

Pike reflects the Anglo-French belief/hope that the Russians were a tottering, backwards state.

Click to expand...

They were right about that in one aspect, though; the way the Russians produced oil, they managed to saturate much of the surrounding humus with oil, meaning that if it was bombed with incendiaries, the fires could burn, potentially, for months, leaving the refineries and other facilities inoperable for several years. It would have gutted Soviet oil production.

TheLordProtector said:

They were right about that in one aspect, though; the way the Russians produced oil, they managed to saturate much of the surrounding humus with oil, meaning that if it was bombed with incendiaries, the fires could burn, potentially, for months, leaving the refineries and other facilities inoperable for several years. It would have gutted Soviet oil production.

Click to expand...

The Soviets had already discovered new oil fields in the 1930s in the trans-Ural region to back up production. You also ignore the basic challenges that make such a massive succes unlikely, such as AA defenses, interceptors, and an overall poor Allied understanding of strategic bombing. They may well bomb targets a kilometer away from Baku due to the inaccuracy of strategic bombing.

Julian said:

The Soviets had already discovered new oil fields in the 1930s in the trans-Ural region to back up production. You also ignore the basic challenges that make such a massive succes unlikely, such as AA defenses, interceptors, and an overall poor Allied understanding of strategic bombing. They may well bomb targets a kilometer away from Baku due to the inaccuracy of strategic bombing.

Click to expand...

I didn't know about those new oil fields, thank you for the info. But, what interceptors? The Soviets had plenty of planes, yes (and a very good understanding of modern aerial warfare), but very few in the Caucasus, many of those obsolete and manned by green pilots and ground crews. Any decent fighter force protecting the Allied bombers would rip them to shreds. The Soviet AA defenses were hardly worth mentioning. The poor understanding, however, yes, is a problem. However, as long as they bomb somewhere within the oil fields, they're pretty much golden.

TheLordProtector said:

So the consensus is France still falls? Hmm. Disappointing. Might it convince the government to fight on after the mainland is occupied?

Click to expand...

If they can get back more equipmen, then maybe. And yes, France is gone by Arras, they've been comprehensively out-manoeuvred and lost a good deal of equipment.

MattII said:

If they can get back more equipmen, then maybe. And yes, France is gone by Arras, they've been comprehensively out-manoeuvred and lost a good deal of equipment.

Click to expand...

OTL it did cause a bit of panic with Hitler and the High command and contribute to the halt order. Also didn't Rommel have a close call at one point?

Wait, how does winning the Battle of Arras translate to a strategic bombing campaign aimed at the USSR again?

Yes, but by Arras the Allies aren't in a position to win, all they can really do is soften the blow.

Snake Featherston said:

Wait, how does winning the Battle of Arras translate to a strategic bombing campaign aimed at the USSR again?

Click to expand...

My thinking was that the Battle of Arras might lead to France still holding some of the mainland, which would leave open the question of carrying out Operation Pike, which was being prepared for before France fell. OTL, the Brits scrapped it as soon as the French surrendered, (rightly) reasoning that Germany was enough to deal with. This might not happen in a scenario where France fought on. I don't know enough about the Fall of France to say whether or not any of this could have happened, so I'ma trust you guys here and say that I must have been wrong on the whole "France could have held after this" front.

So, then, let's say the Allies manage to withdraw to Dunkirk and Calais and evacuate more equipment. France, though the mainland still falls, does not surrender, the government fleeing to North Africa. What happens next? Does the sudden freeing of forces from mainland Europe (despite a huge loss, obviously) allow the Allies to win in Norway or simply withdraw later, or even stalemate with German forces? Does Corsica hold (personally, I find it unlikely, but hey, this is AH)? I think the next part of the campaign in Europe would be the taking of Libya, and a concentrated naval offensive against the Italians in the Mediterranean and the Germans in the North Sea and Atlantic, as well as a more-or-less OTL Battle of Britain (this largely depends on whether the Germans still carry out Barbarossa or not).

Faeelin said:

Isn't this ASB? The strategic bombing campaign against Germany, conducted, with more powerful bombers with better bases, took a few years to make an impact.

Pike reflects the Anglo-French belief/hope that the Russians were a tottering, backwards state.

Click to expand...

Why should an operation considered OTL be ASB?

a complete sucess might be ASB , but trying?

Regardless of sucess: what would be SUs reaction to it.

DOW on UK/France?
Russian Lend Lease to Germany? - What if Germany got early T34 or KV designs to operate with - learning strengths and weaknesses? Imagine German T34 battalions but each tank gets its radio (German doctrine with Russian tanks - maybe upgraded with teh KwK 40 L43 )

On an operational level the battle of Arras IOTL was a success for the British as it contributed to the halt orders and allowed for the establishment of a strongpoint at Dunkirk and eventually evacuation.

MattII:France is gone by Arras, they've been comprehensively out-manoeuvred and lost a good deal of equipment.

Click to expand...

This is true but a tactical victory at Arras may bolster French confidence in their British allies as well as buy time establishing alternative evacuation points for the British. There is also the issue of preserving lines of communication between the allies, although with the French Army in the state that it is, the benefits of this are somewhat limited.

TheLordProtector:
So the consensus is France still falls? Hmm. Disappointing. Might it convince the government to fight on after the mainland is occupied?

Click to expand...

As for Operation pike, I think Britain and the French government in Exile would be focused principally on Africa, and there would be no myth that strategic airpower is the allies' only offensive weapon at this time.

However, the real question is how will the allies win at Arras? The original plan called for 2 infantry divisions to support the tanks but the attack went ahead with 2 batallions. Can anyone explain why this was? How could this have been changed?

Maybe if the attack went ahead with 2 infantry brigades it might have had more success. Then in that timeline would the what if be what if the allies at Arrass had divisional Artillery support on sight.

All that's needed is simple luck or perhaps more determination on the commander's part. Frankforce almost busted through Rommel's anti-air IOTL; however, after losing something like ten tanks to the Ghost, Major-General Franklyn (who commanded the British) decided losses were too heavy and pulled back. Keep a few more tanks active and/or make Franklyn determined to break Rommel and a victory is possible without infantry.

Perhaps, but the extra infantry might give him the confidence he needs to press the attack.

Some Bloke said:

This is true but a tactical victory at Arras may bolster French confidence in their British allies as well as buy time establishing alternative evacuation points for the British. There is also the issue of preserving lines of communication between the allies, although with the French Army in the state that it is, the benefits of this are somewhat limited.

Click to expand...

That's about what I noted in my first post.