AHC: British Mobile Forces Better Prepared In 1940?

What is the OTL sequence of events?


  • Experimental Mechanised Force 1927-29
  • Tank Brigade 1931
  • Mobile Force in Mersa Matruh 1936
  • Mobile Division in Britain 1937
  • Mobile Division (Egypt) 1938

Is this it?
 
What is the OTL sequence of events?


  • Experimental Mechanised Force 1927-29
  • Tank Brigade 1931
  • Mobile Force in Mersa Matruh 1936
  • Mobile Division in Britain 1937
  • Mobile Division (Egypt) 1938

Is this it?

Good question

Britain had what 4 Divisions during Peacetime during the 30s in Britain?

So I think during the 30s the 1st Division becomes a Mobile division (at least on paper) and always gets the latest tanks - while the 3 remaining Infantry divisions become fully motorised by the end of the 30s

After Munich or equivalent moment when the West wakes up to the threat of Germany a 2nd armoured division is raised - initially by splitting all of the sub units with in the 1st Mobile Division

A Mobile Force is raised in Egypt during 1936 but this includes mostly older tanks and 60 odd Rolls Royce Armoured cars but is the start of the Mobile Division in Egypt - by 1940 it has some of the latest equipment but mostly older tanks and more modified armoured cars with the bulk of the New Tank's and other tracked vehicles going to the 3rd and subsequent Mobile divisions.

But with 13 years of legacy development and developing a mobile all arms doctrine it does not really matter if they have the latest 'universal tank' and SP guns - its how they use what they have that matters (as it was they used what they had quite well).
 
The problem was the French

The existing forces (BEF and French) could have held except for French leadership. They never used their air force well (actually had more planes than the Germans), tied up too many forces in static positions, and were too wedded to their idea of what the Germans would do to react in a timely manner to what the Germans were doing. The Brits followed their lead for way too long...
 
What difference would the production of a decent batch of Medium MkIII, perhaps ~80 to replace the Medium MkI from 1933? These were pretty fast, double the speed of the MkII, and a more modern design.

How would the Mobile Division develop with a regiment of new, fast tanks? Or would they have been sent to Egypt to be part of Mobile Force in 1936 instead? Would another batch would another batch be produced when it was decided to re-arm?
 
What difference would the production of a decent batch of Medium MkIII, perhaps ~80 to replace the Medium MkI from 1933? These were pretty fast, double the speed of the MkII, and a more modern design.

How would the Mobile Division develop with a regiment of new, fast tanks? Or would they have been sent to Egypt to be part of Mobile Force in 1936 instead? Would another batch would another batch be produced when it was decided to re-arm?

I would like to think that by 1939ish continuous development would see a resonable 'Universal tank' design rather than a mix of Light, Infantry and Cruiser tanks

I think the closest they came to IIRC this was a one off Vickers design (?) of the A10 Cruiser which had double the armour (60mm - 20mm) and a 3 man turret.

Also I would like to see this tank armed with a 'modern' version of the 20 CWT 3" AA gun adapted for tank use rather than a good 40mm hole puncher.

This could fire a 12.5 pound / 5.5 kg APC shell at a MV of about 750mps - and being a 76.2mm gun could have fired a far more useful HE and smoke shell.

More importantly the doctrine and training in using tanks and combined arms etc would be far more advanced than was the case.

This is more important than the actual kit used

As for kit being sent to Egypt - I still think that so long as there is the remotest threat of problems in Europe then any force overseas will be lower in the pecking order and very little of the modern kit would be sent.

It was only really after Dynamo (when it was obvious that Britain would not be fighting on the continent for some years that they sent large numbers of the more modern tanks to Egypt)
 
The problem was the French........ The Brits followed their lead for way too long...

But that's what you get if you only supply an almost insignificant part of the land force, you have to follow what the major part wants to do....

Realistically a peacetime commitment to deploy a BEF to France throughout the 20s and 30s would mean that GB send a much larger (and better) force in 39 and therefore gets much more say in the planning of what will happen.

Britain had what 4 Divisions during Peacetime during the 30s in Britain?

In WWI GB sent six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades initially and built it up rapidly.

If you have similar sized force prepared to land in France during the 30s
(say 4 infantry and 2 Armoured Div ?)

By 1939 with all the build up with Munich etc what size would it be ? (with conscription to boost numbers and far more well trained officers and NCOs than OTL) Say 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div ?

This force might have a significant effect in 1940 with 8 more months after it has landed to grow even bigger ? (apart from its potential effect on the Saar Offensive) Does it stop the FoF or just make a bigger pile of equipment on the sand on the 4 June ?
 
...

By 1939 with all the build up with Munich etc what size would it be ? (with conscription to boost numbers and far more well trained officers and NCOs than OTL) Say 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div ?

This force might have a significant effect in 1940 with 8 more months after it has landed to grow even bigger ? (apart from its potential effect on the Saar Offensive) Does it stop the FoF or just make a bigger pile of equipment on the sand on the 4 June ?

On the game board I'd be able to stuff Pz Grp Kleist with that sort of wet dream army.
 
But that's what you get if you only supply an almost insignificant part of the land force, you have to follow what the major part wants to do....

Realistically a peacetime commitment to deploy a BEF to France throughout the 20s and 30s would mean that GB send a much larger (and better) force in 39 and therefore gets much more say in the planning of what will happen.



In WWI GB sent six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades initially and built it up rapidly.

If you have similar sized force prepared to land in France during the 30s
(say 4 infantry and 2 Armoured Div ?)

By 1939 with all the build up with Munich etc what size would it be ? (with conscription to boost numbers and far more well trained officers and NCOs than OTL) Say 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div ?

This force might have a significant effect in 1940 with 8 more months after it has landed to grow even bigger ? (apart from its potential effect on the Saar Offensive) Does it stop the FoF or just make a bigger pile of equipment on the sand on the 4 June ?

With my realistic head on - hang on a sec don't use it very often - there we go.

Well without making the BEF any bigger we are still looking at 9 Divisions in 3 Corps effectively being the principle fighting components of the BEF

But with the POD of our Mobile force continuing and lets say effectively becoming 1st Division at some point in the mid 30s we might see 3 Corps each with 1 'Mobile division' and 2 Motorised Infantry Divisions - each corps would also have its own Reconnaissance Regiment which would also have benefited from improved development of the mobile force.

Hopefully in practice this would similar to a 'Mobile Brigade' in all but name

However my realistic head also tells me that the BEF had some serious shortages of equipment (Boots, Revolvers and tanks) so while there might be lots of 'medium tanks' or 'Universal tanks' and very few light or heavy (again my assumption is that continued development of the Mobile brigade further identifies the need for a single universal tank design rather than relying on a mixed bag of light, Cruiser and Infantry tanks) - there would possibly be enough in early 1940 for the 12 Tank Battalions that we need in those 3 Mobile divisions - however I'm not so sure about the 3 Corps and 1 Army Reconnaissance Regiments and suspect that these would be relying on light tanks and armoured cars.

Still in OTL June 1940 Britain was building over 100 tanks a month and this number was climbing rapidly

As for all this simply resulting in a similar number of better tanks being abandoned in France - well at the end of the Day the BEF represented only 10% of the Allies during the battle - however who knows what effect a 'Mobile division' might have had in an Arras counter attack type scenario?
 
What about having an Armoured Corps, 1st and 2nd ADs together with some cats and dogs as Corps troops, perhaps a couple of cavalry regiments and mech infantry battalions that can be scraped up? Assuming of course that there is equipment for 2 armoured divisions in 1939 for May 1940.
 
As for all this simply resulting in a similar number of better tanks being abandoned in France - well at the end of the Day the BEF represented only 10% of the Allies during the battle

The BEF might only be 10% in numbers OTL but it was a much higher % of actual effective units due to a large % of the French/Belgium/Dutch army's being old reserves B and C class etc with limited ability.

ITTL the expanded BEF will be of a similar (or better) standard to OTL BEF just significantly bigger due to a realistic plan to fight in Europe and all that implies. This means that it might well be much closer in size to the Active French army say, 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div Regular deployed in Sept 39 with a build up of 12 TA Inf and 2 more Armoured Div deployed and ready prior to German invasion? (I'm assuming that if you increase the size of the army in mid 30s you will increase the number of both equipment produced and officers/NCOs trained and that will then feed into making growth much easier in the late 30s ?)

With 26 Div (16 more than OTL?) you would probably have a effect on the battle simply by displacing some of the French units ie B series would take the place of C who would be displaced to rear line strategic reserve.
 
The BEF might only be 10% in numbers OTL but it was a much higher % of actual effective units due to a large % of the French/Belgium/Dutch army's being old reserves B and C class etc with limited ability.

ITTL the expanded BEF will be of a similar (or better) standard to OTL BEF just significantly bigger due to a realistic plan to fight in Europe and all that implies. This means that it might well be much closer in size to the Active French army say, 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div Regular deployed in Sept 39 with a build up of 12 TA Inf and 2 more Armoured Div deployed and ready prior to German invasion? (I'm assuming that if you increase the size of the army in mid 30s you will increase the number of both equipment produced and officers/NCOs trained and that will then feed into making growth much easier in the late 30s ?)

With 26 Div (16 more than OTL?) you would probably have a effect on the battle simply by displacing some of the French units ie B series would take the place of C who would be displaced to rear line strategic reserve.

If the British army deploys twice as many active divisions in May 1940 then all bets are off!!

However I based my Alternate BEF on the roughly the same numbers of Bodies and slightly fewer tanks (a 18 - 20 ton universal tank would take more resources than a 5 ton MKIV light tank although I suspect slightly less less than a Matilda II so you end up with fewer but more useful tanks).

And taking the full numbers sent to France I think by not having the 1st Army tank brigade there is just about enough tanks for 12 Regiments?(battalions for you non commonwealth types) - or roughly 600 tanks
 
If the British army deploys twice as many active divisions in May 1940 then all bets are off!!

My thinking was just that if you get armoured divisions (what ever you call them even if its only one) that can only be due to committing (money and men) to be ready to fight in Europe in early 30s, that means you will need to commit to sending a significant BEF. (ie WWI or larger) This almost certainly leads to something much larger by May 1940...
 
The BEF might only be 10% in numbers OTL but it was a much higher % of actual effective units due to a large % of the French/Belgium/Dutch army's being old reserves B and C class etc with limited ability.

...

The under armed & under trained division the BEF used as LoC troops were the equivalent to the Series C, or even fourth wave French units. The French Series B were way better off than the BEF 'divisions' raised after mobilization.
 
Good question

Britain had what 4 Divisions during Peacetime during the 30s in Britain?

If I recall correctly, British Home Forces in the 1930's were a tad over 100,000 strong, and were organized into five divisions, all undermanned. There were also fourteen divisions in the Territorial Army, but these existed mostly on paper.
 
Central reserves

ITTL the expanded BEF will be of a similar (or better) standard to OTL BEF just significantly bigger due to a realistic plan to fight in Europe and all that implies. This means that it might well be much closer in size to the Active French army say, 8 infantry and 4 Armoured Div Regular deployed in Sept 39 with a build up of 12 TA Inf and 2 more Armoured Div deployed and ready prior to German invasion?

With 26 Div (16 more than OTL?) you would probably have a effect on the battle simply by displacing some of the French units ie B series would take the place of C who would be displaced to rear line strategic reserve.

Let's imagine that the BEF is 26 divisions on May 10, 1940 --- that does a couple of things immediately. THe biggest one is that the extra 16 divisions is a massive mobile reserve. The plan to advance to the Dyle in Belgium in OTL ate up all potential mobile reserves. Another 16 divisions that are operationally and tactically mobile either allows the BEF to do all of the advancing into Belgium and puts the French mobile units into reserve OR creates a powerful 2nd British Army that can smash the Sickle Cut.

However, my big thought on this is a BEF that is capable of putting 28 divisions in France by 5/10/40 is a very Great Britain. It is a country that probably would have felt confident in its strength in 1936 or 1937 or 1938 or 1939 to smack down that Austrian upstart instead of attempting to buy time to re-arm and rebuild its formations and logistical support structure. It is a country that probably would have recovered from the Depression faster as Keynesian multipliers would be at play OR if this was a zero net budget change, it would be a country without much of either a new navy or an RAF.

A 28 division BEF is interesting but it is from a very different timeline where there might never be a need for it.
 
A Mobile Force is raised in Egypt during 1936 but this includes mostly older tanks and 60 odd Rolls Royce Armoured cars but is the start of the Mobile Division in Egypt - by 1940 it has some of the latest equipment but mostly older tanks and more modified armoured cars with the bulk of the New Tank's and other tracked vehicles going to the 3rd and subsequent Mobile divisions.
IIRC in our timeline the Mobile Force was seen as the lead unit since Italy's growing conflict with Abyssinia had people feeling that region as the most likely to see fighting break out plus there was more free space to train. If the Experimental Armoured Force stays in existence then I could see a progression of it continuing to evolve, a second formation being raised when after their crushing the opposition at the annual army training manoeuvres several years running it's pointed out they really need an equal opponent to train against and it showing just how powerful they are in comparison, the first gets sent out to Egypt when things in Africa start hotting up, then when re-armament starts in earnest a third armoured division is raised in the UK in the late 1930s. Two, and later three, armoured formations seems like the largest number feasible both financially and organisationally within the army to me.


I would like to think that by 1939ish continuous development would see a resonable 'Universal tank' design rather than a mix of Light, Infantry and Cruiser tanks.
As I've said on other similar threads a 'universal' tank was what the army specifically wanted, it was only after the failure of the A6 and follow-on A7 tank development programmes at the start of the 1930s due to their not having a powerful enough engine to meet the performance requirements that they went for the infantry-cruiser split as a solution. Get the right people to pick a decent engine - and there were several to choose from, my favourite being the Rolls-Royce Kestrel aero-engine - and you're good to go. You're still likely to see light tanks but more in the reconnaissance role where they're suited.


Well without making the BEF any bigger we are still looking at 9 Divisions in 3 Corps effectively being the principle fighting components of the BEF. But with the POD of our Mobile force continuing and lets say effectively becoming 1st Division at some point in the mid 30s we might see 3 Corps each with 1 'Mobile division' and 2 Motorised Infantry Divisions - each corps would also have its own Reconnaissance Regiment which would also have benefited from improved development of the mobile force.
I think it's more likely you'd see I and II Corps made up of an armoured division and two infantry divisions with III made up solely of infantry, how motorised the infantry are, IIRC the British army was the most heavily motorised/mechanised force in existence at the time, is a question. Doesn't require much of an increase in manpower merely re-employing it.
 
I'm getting the idea that regardless of doctrinal development what Britain really needs is a fleet of tanks to be built in the 30s that can be used in 1940. That means well and truly built in decent numbers, shaken down and mature in service.

The best organisation and doctrine in the world doesn't matter if Britain can only field 79 medium/cruiser tanks on the outbreak of war. Average doctrine using 400+ MkIII mediums will produce better results than awesome doctrine with light tanks.
 
Top