AHC: Make this image real (British Armies on Eastern Front)

Deleted member 97083

Make this image real. In other words, in a scenario where the Nazis invade the Soviet Union some time prior to May 1941, the challenge is to have a British expeditionary force of 51 divisions arrive in the Baltic to aid the Soviets and arrive by the beginning of that month.

lprwnpwntooz.jpg
 

Redbeard

Banned
IIRC it was early in the history of the Eastern Front briefly considered to deploy British troops on the Eastern Front, but in the southern regions (through Iran), but from what I understand it was only in the most desperate times of 1941 and early 1942. A British fighter wing briefly operated in USSR in 1941 and a Free French fighter unit for most of the campaign.

If a map like you post should be realised it would first require a truly desperate USSR but also the British having a safe route through which to supply forces in the Baltic region. I would consider the Danish straits impossible in a WWII scenario but if we have the Norwegian campaign fail for Germany and next Sweden and Finland act quite accommodating towards the British - then I guess it would be theoretically possible to deploy significant British Army forces through Murmansk and Narvik-Sweden.

If the Mediterranean front also is closed by Italy for some reason never entering the war or quitting early (not entirely implausible I guess) then there certainly would be a lot of British resources available for the Eastern Front force. After all UK alone (excl. Empire) in 1941 produced more in all important categories than the entire Axis combined.

At least the 1700 Covenanter tanks produced in OTL and of which none ever reached a front will have a chance to be of some use. As I understand it the Covenanter was especially hopeless in hot climate (the OTL NA front) but perhaps would just do in the Baltic?
 

HIM Dogson

Sweden joins the Allies due to Norway holding, allowing the British to project power there. They close the North African theatre. In this case an expeditionary force to the Eastern Front is a rational course of action.
 

Dilvish

An army of 51 divisions seems too large for me. It would take a lot of shipping and port capacity to move those British armies there, and to keep them supplied.
British convoys must be coming through the Baltic as well as sailing to Murmansk. Maybe there is a major railroad running from Narvik to Leningrad or Helsinki?

The Brits have the ability to move and supply an army of that size to the Baltic, instead of landing in France or Italy. France and Italy might be neutrals in this scenario.

Achaemenid Rome, what game is that?
 

Dunning Kruger

Britain goes communist sometime in the 20s and 30s. Although it's under the British flag, 40 of those divisions are actually Indian and other people under the Empire...
 

KACKO

CSjednotkaSSSR1943.jpg


They were there. I am kidding. That's Czechoslovak battalion in USSR, initially using British helmets and British style uniforms.
 

Nelson Mikeson

If the Germans capture Stalingrad and the Caucasian oil fields,than I could see a British bombing campaign in the Caucasus,but sending troops on the Eastern Front would be hard,tough possible,if wanted,also from the North,from convoys landed at Murmansk and Archangelsk,but,leaving aside the,,This man(Russian) is your friend;He fights for freedom" thing,are the British soldiers really going to die for the Soviet Union?I mean,would Churchill send troops to fight for the reestablishment of the Soviet regimes of the Nazi-occupied USSR?And after that,would the British fight for Stalin to regain half of Poland and Bessarabia and then subdue Eastern Europe?And would the British soldiers have nothing to say when they would witness they're Soviet comrades raping German women?Not to take into account the huge casualtie rate of the Eastern Front,which,if the rabidly anti-communist Churchill,won't find useless for British interests,the British people would.Though it would be cool to see a joint Sovieto-British assault on Berlin,the British simply had no reason to fight the Germans through Russia and gain nothing in exchange,when they could fight Germany through North Africa,Italy and France,where they really had interest.It's not like they expected to fight WWIII with the Soviets when they meeted head-on,it's just that they saw the Soviets as the lesser-of-two-evils and they expected to see communism "somehow" dissapearing after the end of the war.Even if the Soviet Union was to be seen as losing the war,none of the main Allied leaders proposed sending an Allied Expeditionary Force.

P.S.:Even in the ASB scenario of an Eastern AEF,Monty would not left the main Western Allied theatre,only to be bossed by Zhukov,as the picture seems to show.
 

Nelson Mikeson

Blebea Cezar-Iulian said:
If the Germans capture Stalingrad and the Caucasian oil fields,than I could see a British bombing campaign in the Caucasus,but sending troops on the Eastern Front would be hard,tough possible,if wanted,also from the North,from convoys landed at Murmansk and Archangelsk,but,leaving aside the,,This man(Russian) is your friend;He fights for freedom" thing,are the British soldiers really going to die for the Soviet Union?I mean,would Churchill send troops to fight for the reestablishment of the Soviet regimes of the Nazi-occupied USSR?And after that,would the British fight for Stalin to regain half of Poland and Bessarabia and then subdue Eastern Europe?And would the British soldiers have nothing to say when they would witness they're Soviet comrades raping German women?Not to take into account the huge casualtie rate of the Eastern Front,which,if the rabidly anti-communist Churchill,won't find useless for British interests,the British people would.Though it would be cool to see a joint Sovieto-British assault on Berlin,the British simply had no reason to fight the Germans through Russia and gain nothing in exchange,when they could fight Germany through North Africa,Italy and France,where they really had interest.It's not like they expected to fight WWIII with the Soviets when they meeted head-on,it's just that they saw the Soviets as the lesser-of-two-evils and they expected to see communism "somehow" dissapearing after the end of the war.Even if the Soviet Union was to be seen as losing the war,none of the main Allied leaders proposed sending an Allied Expeditionary Force.

P.S.:Even in the ASB scenario of an Eastern AEF,Monty would not left the main Western Allied theatre,only to be bossed by Zhukov,as the picture seems to show.
Click to expand...

Also,if the British wouldn't have tried to seize Narvik(why would you try to prevent your mortal enemy from getting his iron shipments?) and the Germans would be sure that they would not change they're mind and,as a result,don't seize the Danish straits,at the very most I see a British naval bombardment of the forces near Leningrad,though U-Boats in the Baltic would make the Atlantic seem like a shore water,where you could be bitten by jellyfishes.
 

Look More Closely Later

Achaemenid Rome said:
Make this image real. In other words, in a scenario where the Nazis invade the Soviet Union some time prior to May 1941, the challenge is to have a British expeditionary force of 51 divisions arrive in the Baltic to aid the Soviets and arrive by the beginning of that month.

lprwnpwntooz.jpg
Click to expand...
Hmm. Original timeline, Churchill said in his war-memoirs (volume 1, 'War Cabinet Problems') the plan in September 1939 was for a 55 division British army - most of which, in this scenario, would apparently be sitting in the Baltics, somehow - and in the Baltics, not France, so France has either fallen or is neutral (and if France has fallen why does the UK have so many divisions in Russia, with none (after garrisons for places such as the Middle East and Malaya are subtracted) at home to reassure the public and deal with Axis paratroopers?)
I also don't see how they'd be supplied or get to the Baltics unless via ports in Northern Russia - but to move so much past Scandinavia I think Norway and Sweden would have to be neutral too or friendly, with no Axis planes or submarines based there.
I also note the Russians have a hammer and sickle flag, so have apparently gone communist - but are still happy to have this many British troops on their north flank and moving through the Baltic states with possible impact on what happens to those states after the war (unless for some reason the Baltics were British in this timeline to start off with?)

Requirements of scenario:
1) Probably requires a neutral France. (Must be non-Axis to allow the British to feel free to move so many divisions elsewhere; probably must be non-combatant, otherwise the British would put troops in France to attack Germany.)
2) Probably requires a neutral or friendly Scandinavian peninsula to allow the British to move and keep supplied so many soldiers in the Baltics via Northern Russian ports.
3) Probably requires communist Russia since Russian flag is hammer and sickle.
4) Possibly requires a very desperate Stalin (or other Russian leader) or British ownership of the Baltic states before hostilities, since Russia is apparently not sufficiently concerned about post-war political consequences of so many British troops moving through (and liberating) the Baltic states.

Edit:
To allow for this many British troops to be concentrated in Northern Russia/Baltics, I think the British possibly have to be confident that Italy isn't a problem, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top