Billy Mitchell causes successful Operation Sealion!

PoD: Mitchell does not issue a statement after the crash of the dirigible Shenandoah in 1925. He is not court martialled as a result, but remains an air power advocate in the US Army. During this period, he also becomes convinced of the benefits of standardizing on a relative few aircraft types due to this making supply and logistics easier.

Franklin D. Roosevelt appoints him as assistant secretary of air(1), and sends him on a tour of Europe, especially Britain. Mitchell's ideas about the obsolesence of naval vessels in the face of air attack are however not taken up at home.

In Britain, with the worsening political situation, and already fearful of a German aerial knock-out blow to London(2) at the start of any new war , his ideas are adopted by the Ramsey MacDonald and subsequent Baldwin governments. The dire economic situation, combined with the fact that hundreds of aircraft can be built for the cost of a single battleship, and the economies that this allows, no doubt plays a part in their calculations.

The Royal Navy is to be scaled back greatly with virtually no new major new units to be built after 1934, and severe cut-backs in personnel, training and supplies (even of fuel and ammo) mean the fleet is in poor condition.

Resources saved from the RN, are devoted to the RAF are poured into aircraft production. The idea of standardizing on a few aircraft types is greatly favoured too.

Masses of Handley Page Heyford aircraft (twinned engine biplane bombers) are produced for the RAF -- and other aircraft manufacturers are order to produce this type too. They are intended to be used to bomb enemy targets, including the ships of any invading force.

From 1939 onwards the Heyfords are supplemented by Armstrong Whitworth Whitleys (twin engine monoplane bombers) and Vickers Wellesleys (monoplane light bombers).(3)

Meanwhile, the RAF fighter arm is equipped with Gloster Gauntlets (biplane fighters with open cockpits), and from 1935 onwards, thanks to their accelerated development, with large numbers of Gloster Gladiators (biplane fighters with closed cockpits).

It is however recognized that the armament of the biplane fighters is inadequate for use against heavy bombers, and so a newer aircraft, preferably a monoplane, with heavy armament is required. The RAF adopts the Boulton Paul Defiant(4) (monoplane with a turret) for this role, and is its third main fighter, and it begins to enter service in large numbers from 1937 - by mid 1940, the RAF has over 1,200 of this aircraft in service, and it has been begun to replace the remaining Gladiators.

When war breaks out in 1939 after the German invasion of Poland, the Chamberlain government is confident of repelling German aerial attacks on the UK, as well as preventing any possibility of German invasion.

The Royal Navy is given three principle goals in the war:
1. To blockade German seaborne supplies
2. To protect convoys to the UK
3. To provide supplies to the BEF

Major surface units are for the most part to remain inactive (the UK being considered adequately protected from invasion, thanks to bomber aircraft), although the best units are deployed to Singapore to deter any Japanese threat(5). Returning First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, is disgusted by this treatment of the senior service, and eventually resigns from this position when the war cabinet forbids the navy taking action against iron exports from Norway with comments about "disasterous flanking operations"(6)

In April 1940, the Germans do invade Norway. They are actual able to deploy naval larger forces in support of the campaign than the Royal Navy, despite nominally being vastly outnumbered - simply because of the poor condition and lack of supplies of RN ships. The Germans suffer only 1 destroyer lost, but manage to sink a number of RN vessels, and even capture 3 RN destroyers in Narvik which had been sent to defend the port with inadequate fuel and supplies to escape to the UK. The RAF bombers fail to make any real impact on the course of the campaign - but the RAF insist this was due to unusual and unrepeatable conditions.

In May/June 1940, the Germans over-run the low countries and France. The worst part of the defeat from the British point of view, is the surrender of the entire BEF after is surrounded near Dunkirk. Naval evacuation is considered briefly, but the option is not tried - due to the poor state of the RN, and the assumed vulnerability of all ships to air attack.

Just before the surrender of France, Churchill is recalled to the Admiralty and war cabinet yet again. He orders, without war cabinet authorization, an RN attack on the French navy base of Mers-el-Kebir. The attack does some damage, but most of the French vessels escape to Toulon. A number of French vessels also manage to break out from Alexandria, and head for France too. Churchill is forced to resign from the government, again, and Marshall Petain's government is on the brink of war with Britain.

In July, Britain faces the threat of invasion - its leader weak, its army lost, its navy unseaworthy, and its airforce equipped with poorly chosen and obsolete aircraft. The result was a foregone conclusion...


Footnotes
(1) In OTL, Mitchell did think he might get this position
(2) British governments of the 1930s were fearful this possibility in the 1930s OTL.
(3) Later introduction of these types can be largely attributed to the fact that aircraft manufacturers of this period were encouraged by the government to concentrate on mass production, rather than development, until a specific enquiry for a new aircraft had been issued. This management system, can also be attributed to the relatively small number of new types of aircraft developed and deployed by Britain during the European War of 1939-1940.
(4) Popularly known to its pilots as "Daffy"
(5) Ironically, many of these vessels were sank by the Japanese aircraft in 1941, belatedly proving Mitchell's theory correct.
(6) A reference to the Dardenelles campaign.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Heyford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_Whitley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Wellesley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Gauntlet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Gladiator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
 
Last edited:
ASB to the max.... indeed, ASB's on illicit substances...

So the British are going to abandon their shipbuilding industry, because of what one US General thinks? And let the RN run down....yes, of course they are.

And despite knowing clearly in OTL that they needed to upgrade the RAF to monplane fighters, somehow in an ATL where the RAF gets priority they dont, and build obsolete biplanes they KNEW couldnt catch fast bombers.
 
The point of the Defiant is to catch multi-engine bombers, because biplanes couldn't catch them and/or didn't carry enough armament. That is what it was for in OTL. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant#Evolution

Until OTL June 1940 (at least until 29 May), the Defiant was actually, in OTL, performing quite well as an RAF fighter - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant#Operational_history - so it doesn't seem such a stretch that it might be rated as a good fighter, from 1937 to 1940
 
The point of the Defiant is to catch multi-engine bombers, because biplanes couldn't catch them and/or didn't carry enough armament. That is what it was for in OTL. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant#Evolution

Until OTL June 1940 (at least until 29 May), the Defiant was actually, in OTL, performing quite well as an RAF fighter - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant#Operational_history - so it doesn't seem such a stretch that it might be rated as a good fighter, from 1937 to 1940


No, the Defiant was a rubbish fighter that showed it as soon as it actually got used in combat.

But your main fallacies arent changed.

There is NO way that the British are happily going to allow the RN to wither away just on the theories of some American general. You seem to have no conception of how the British regarded the RN and its role pre-war.

WHY does the RAF build loads of obsolete fighters rather than the modern fighters under development? Is Mitchell feeding them all drugs or something? And when they finally decide on a new fighter, its the worst of the ones on offer.
 
The British have a naval heritage going back centuries, a Admirality not a ministry and a First Lord not just a Minister. The only way there would be more aircraft is if the British navy adopted Billy Mitchell's aircraft carrier idea instead of battleships.
 
If anything the British would reduce their land forces yet farther to pay for both an air force and navy. But more likely a more successful Billy Mitchell means fewer fighters all around.

But ships are going to be bristling with anti-aircraft weapons. I could see retrofits that reduce secondary armament to add as much AAA as late war retrofits had.

If anything this makes ships - especially BB and BC harder targets for aircraft.
 
Why would the British give up their primary advantage? So that the French Navy can rule the seas?

They would only adopt the dirigible as a part of a naval flotilla, for example, as a part of a multi-layered AA system. They could also serve as floating gun batteries along the coast of the Channel in the Battle of Britain, and if the Germans ever dared to try Operation Sealion.
 

Commissar

Banned
Why would the British give up their primary advantage? So that the French Navy can rule the seas?

They would only adopt the dirigible as a part of a naval flotilla, for example, as a part of a multi-layered AA system. They could also serve as floating gun batteries along the coast of the Channel in the Battle of Britain, and if the Germans ever dared to try Operation Sealion.

Don't forget the Carrier Dirigibles with a squadron of fighter craft ;)
 
With a reduced navy, how would the British be able to protect the sea lanes needed for their continued oppression of their colonies?
 

Graehame

Banned
Although I hate to agree with Astrodragon about anything, the Brits are not going to abandon centuries of naval tradition based on what 1 US general thinks-- or in fact what anyone thinks. Britain was an island nation whose defenses had always depended on sea power, & facing a war their knee-jerk reaction would inevitably be to build up their fleet. At the most they might have accorded aircraft a higher R&D priority-- not manufacturing priority, because of the short lead time to build aircraft. This would have led to more technologically advanced aircraft, not larger numbers of biplanes. By the end of WW1 is was well-recognized that low-wing monoplanes like the Ju CL-1 (at 137mph it was 13mph faster than the late-war Fokker D-VII biplane) were the wave of the future. Maybe they'd have been the first to build a jet fighter or something.
 
Top