BEF size by end of 1940 if no France invasion

I believe the French and British plan at the start of WW2 was to just wait out the Germans and hope the British blocade would ruin Germany's economy and lead to a regime collapse. Did the British have any plans for a gradual increase of the BEF from the 10 or so divisions on the ground that they had in May 1940? This could fit in with a ATL for a later German invasion combined with a bigger BEF, not sure if it will make much of a difference, maybe just a bigger, messier Dunkirk scenario.
 

Cook

Banned
I’m uncertain how fast the British divisions being trained would have joined the BEF, but do know that the 6th and 7th Australian Divisions had been due to join the BEF very shortly when the German invasion commenced and the 9th division later in the year.
 

Hoist40

Banned
The British 1st Armored Division was getting ready to go to France. Maybe the 2nd Armored Division would be ready by the end of the year.
 
I believe the French and British plan at the start of WW2 was to just wait out the Germans and hope the British blocade would ruin Germany's economy and lead to a regime collapse. Did the British have any plans for a gradual increase of the BEF from the 10 or so divisions on the ground that they had in May 1940? This could fit in with a ATL for a later German invasion combined with a bigger BEF, not sure if it will make much of a difference, maybe just a bigger, messier Dunkirk scenario.

In early 1940 Neville Chamberlain said the BEF would be about 50 divisions by mid 1941. Not sure if that was propaganda or a real plan.
 
It was a real plant the British Empire managed to deploy 75 divisions to Europe (including Italy) during WW1 so aiming for 50 was not impossible but very optimistic due to the resources being devoted to the RAF. If the Germans hadn't attacked the B.E.F. would have continued to build up as Commonwealth divisions arrived and British divisions were trained up but Britain didn't have the resources to both build up the Army as fast as in WW1 while also building up the RAF.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In early 1940 Neville Chamberlain said the BEF would be about 50 divisions by mid 1941. Not sure if that was propaganda or a real plan.

They should be able to get 50 divisions even if a few are under strength. The real question will be how well trained are these units and what % of the TOE do they have. It is likely 1942 before they have 50 full TOE divisions.

Important to remember the butterflies. Without the fall of France, FDR is likely not the nominee. Even if he is the nominee, much of the legislation providing support to the UK will never be passed, so the equipment will have to be paid for with foreign currency reserves or built in the Empire.
 
It's important to remember that the B.E.F was the divisions in France. While the Empire will certainly have more than 50 divisions by mid '41 I doubt that with the need to garrison India and the Far East plus keep forces in the Mediterranean plus the tendency not to send units over till they were at full strength I doubt there will be 50 divisions until '42, unless the RAF's budget gets cut back.
 
It's important to remember that the B.E.F was the divisions in France. While the Empire will certainly have more than 50 divisions by mid '41 I doubt that with the need to garrison India and the Far East plus keep forces in the Mediterranean plus the tendency not to send units over till they were at full strength I doubt there will be 50 divisions until '42, unless the RAF's budget gets cut back.

If France hadn't fallen then it would have been possible to base large parts of bomber command in France an use the to attack the Rhur industries and provide fighter escorts so they could bomb in daylight and find the target. The bombing would have been more effective and suffered fewer loses, reducing the pesource expenditure of Bomber Command. The French airforce would also be attacking again reduceing the drain on Britains resources. Italy would be likely to stay neutral without the lure of an easy victory over France.

The Uboats would have to travel around the top of Britain without the French ports and have less endurace so would sink fewer ships. They would also lose more subs.

Japan would not have siezet French Indo-China in these circumstances so no oil embargo and consequent Pacific war.

What does this have to do with the origonal question you ask? Every one of these butterflies reduces the demand for cash, resources and men allowing more to go to the Army. Without France falling in June 1940 by June 1941 Germany can't win in the west and daren't attack Russia for fear of attack itself. By June 1942 it's all over.
 
Interesting butterfly effects. I guess one question is, at what point does the buildup of the BEF and the French army as well lead to a point of no return where the Germans have to invade if they are to have any chance of defeating the British and French in France.
 
If France hadn't fallen then it would have been possible to base large parts of bomber command in France an use the to attack the Rhur industries and provide fighter escorts so they could bomb in daylight and find the target.
The bombing would have been more effective and suffered fewer loses, reducing the pesource expenditure of Bomber Command. The French airforce would also be attacking again reduceing the drain on Britains resources.

No it would have resulted in a larger Bomber Command. If less bombers are getting shot down then Bomber Command is clearly being successful which under the doctrine of re-enforcing success will get it's budget increased. At the end of the day unless Britain decides to reduce the RAF's budget and manpower to that of the 1918 Royal Flying Corps (and that's very stupid and ASB) then the Army is going to get a smaller share of the armaments pie compared to the WW1. That coupled with the reality that it's per capita more expensive to outfit a 1941 army than a 1918 army (tanks, radio's, vehicles) the 2nd B.E.F. is not going to match the 1st in terms of size.

Italy would be likely to stay neutral without the lure of an easy victory over France.

But unless Britain takes a dose of stupid pills it's going to keep a few divisions in the Med. They might be third rate divisions or Indian/ANZAC divisions undergoing training before going on to France but there will be a few Divisions in the Med.

The Uboats would have to travel around the top of Britain without the French ports and have less endurace so would sink fewer ships. They would also lose more subs.

True, the Navy will get less money that's why I said a 50 division Army is possible unlike OTL where we topped out at 40.

Japan would not have siezet French Indo-China in these circumstances so no oil embargo and consequent Pacific war.

Japan is a unstable power with a large armed forces all ready mobilised and a history of aggression. Britain would be insane to leave the Far East unprotected. Add to that the need to garrison Indian and some division are going to remain there, just like in WW1.

What does this have to do with the origonal question you ask? Every one of these butterflies reduces the demand for cash, resources and men allowing more to go to the Army. Without France falling in June 1940 by June 1941 Germany can't win in the west and daren't attack Russia for fear of attack itself. By June 1942 it's all over.

Well I was responding to the 50 division in mid 1941 which won't happen but I agree with you. The German economy will be in dire shape by winter '41 and barring a successful conquest of France it will be over by winter '42 when widespread starvation sets in.

Interesting butterfly effects. I guess one question is, at what point does the buildup of the BEF and the French army as well lead to a point of no return where the Germans have to invade if they are to have any chance of defeating the British and French in France.

Yes it was Spring/Summer 1940. By autumn the Allies would be too strong, Hitler had a very narrow window of opportunity, he may have been a bastard but his timing was inspired, he picked exactly the right moment to go to war with Germany at it's relative peak against the W. Allies and his decision to attack France as early as possible was entirely correct.
 
I agree with many of the comments already made. Given the quick collapse of France IOTL, it is easy to overlook the several ways France could have held on during the actual invasion.

If the Allies had gone with the Scheldt plan instead of the Dyle Plan, they might have held the line in France.

If France had positioned more troops at Sedan, the German breakout may never have occurred.

If Gamelin choose to have better communication at his HQ, he could have responded quicker to the breakout.

If Gamelin had not been sacked when he did, his planned counter offensive might have stabilized the French lines. His replacement, Weygand, came to the same conclusions, but he had initially cancelled Gamelin's plans upon being appointed, a crucial delay.

And that's without earlier PODs that could have reformed French armed forces and replace its inferior doctrine. It was a strange defeat. By most measures, the Allies should have won the Battle of France. It's a perfect example of how crucial mistakes can cause a decisive defeat, and how quickly morale can be crushed.
 
Top