Better small armies 1939/40

Assault rifle is one capable of automatic fire with intermediate ammunition, this one is not.

No its not but its to illustrate that the potential was there indeed for Denmark to develop and arm its troops with an assault rifle or at least an SLR like the one used by the Brits post-WWII.

So contrary to the OP it could be developed not in Belgium but in Denmark!
 
Norway could use more mine layers and some submarines. The British had a very good WWI submarine, the L Class which remained useful in WWII. Too bad most were scrapped before the war. Norway could buy around 6-8 of those destined to the scrap heap in the 30's and have a very nice little submarine fleet.

All the weapons in the world won't help Norway if there historical decision making is in the place. Norway already had nine good enough submarines, if there had been clear orders and will to use them their effect would have been quite devastating against the German invasion.
 

Markus

Banned
Gents,

Better toys don't equate better technique. Unless there are major changes to the tactical and operational skills of the nations in question, all these weapons do is give the Nazis more and better things to copy.


Bill

True! Minor changes and strategy would have enabled the Belgians and the Norwegians to derail the german invasions but Landshark said this is "technical thread ", not a strategic, political one.
 
Technical thread:
Real problem isn't weapons as clearly demonstrated; those were about to or possible to procure in an OTL.

What is really needed:
Real problem is the political situation; with NO ONE to turn to except Germany what to you expect Denmark to do???

With Norway leaning towards Britain to protect her in the end but suffering from communist scare in the thirties which led to rifle bolts in some instances being kept at Police Headquarters from which they had to be taken to the mobilization points!

What is really needed is some POD making Britain and France building a treaty network to fence in Nazi Germany - but they didn't and the failure at Munich showed that to the face of all. Just as the League of Nations had been a failure because the European system wasn't ready for this idealisting thingy yet.
Who'd go to Britain and France at that day asking for an alliance knowning with almost certainty that it wouldn't be fullfilled?
 
True! Minor changes and strategy would have enabled the Belgians and the Norwegians to derail the german invasions but Landshark said this is "technical thread ", not a strategic, political one.

I was more interested in how these nations could update their militaries before the war but I think I can allow improvements in stratergy and doctrine, they'd more or less have to come in response to better weapons.
 
So how could they get more bang for their buck?

In weapon-technical wise and in very short form:

Netherlands & Norway: Less is more. Both countries tried to support far too large military machines for their respective budgets.

Norwegian Army size of a few brigades would be more than enough to repel any improvised invasion attempt (ie. the case of Germans) while a major attempt could not be repelled in any case. So, for Norway, the entire strength for the Field Army might be six brigades instead of six divisions. Of the said formations one reinforced battalion should be always combat ready. This move would bring the length of conscript training to sufficient length (ie. one-two years) and would enable pre-war officers to actually train with real units. Also, army of this size could be well equipped with modern equipment, ie. anti-tank weapons, numerous automatic arms etc.

Ditto for the Netherlands. Better to have formations which can actually fight than more formations which cannot. Four mobile, well-trained and equipped divisions would have been much more effective in both deterring and fighting the German invasion than historical larger but noneffective forces.
 
Top