Britain in Against Each WWII Opponent Individually

In the title a bit, but was thinking over how stretched British/Commonwealth forces were in World War II and wondered how they'd do against each of the Axis nations in an individual war? Handwaving the causes and so on, would it be as good as I'm taking it?

Germany - The hardest opponent to face and actually inflict a defeat upon. Mostly be a conflict in the air and on the sea with Germany's less than stellar leadership giving them the edge although the U-Boats would cause havoc for a while.

Italy - The problems with Italy's own armed forces would probably see them booted out of North Africa in very short order and Italy itself under threat within a few years.

Japan - This would be a long, bloody campaign which the British and Commonwealth troops would probably go into China for. A steady victory for British and other forces, although Japan would make them pay for each bit of ground.

Thoughts? Any disagreements?
 
I agree that the UK would very likely not be able to defeat Germany on it's own. Maybe they can massively fortify the isles to prevent a german invasion, but i don't think they could ever land on the continent and say advance toward Berlin on their own, they simply would not have the manpower and industrial might needed for such an endeavour. I kinda doubt they would be able to do that even with the historical lend-lease from US (but whitout them entering the war), maybe the result of that will be a violent stand-off. But anyway, these things are very hard to quantify without taking into account the external factors (like what do the other powers do)

As for Japan, well i do agree that it will be a very hard fight, if say this war starts about the same as OTL (but somehow only involving UK and Japan), i firmly believe the RN will be very badly mauled by 1942. I also don't think UK would have been able to build such an overwhelming naval and air superiority by 1944 like US did. One of the deciding factor will be, where is Japan going to get it's oil? Could they somehow get to the East Indies without entering war against US?

In this case though, i do believe that something like lend-lease MIGHT possibly alter things in UK's favour, it will be an extremely difficult fight as again UK does not have the huge manpower superiority, but only if the US will have given UK something like half their aircraft production, and half their surface ships production, and preferably couple of atomic bombs!

But without something like lend-lease, they probably can't defeat Japan either.
 
Last edited:
The main problem is how they fight without using other land area to fight in ?

Italy is easiest this is almost certainly a GB win, RN destroys the RM and then its goes downhill.... (for Italians)

Japan, would be slow and long and without FIC (or US PI/China) this will be a hard fro anybody to come south (or north) but RN is larger and should be able to hold and then its GB(rest of world trade) v Japan so eventually GB wins (or Japan gets sane and gives up accepts terms)

Germany, the hard part is where they fight ? (sea is small and will not be decisive (only Uboats v RN surface craft after first few encounters) and air will be hard to be decisive (long range bombing without escorts) and they have no land border to fight on (and cant really use amphibious attacks easily, RN to big, Heer to big cancels each other out) so long stalemate till somebody else joins in ......
 

nbcman

Donor
It depends on what Germany and Japan the Commonwealth fights. Is it in 1934, 1939 or when? The earlier is better for the Commonwealth. Do the conquests & acquisitions of the Axis powers come along?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
As of 1941 the British carrier fleet would be (with no Germany-Italy fighting)


Large-capacity CVs:
Glorious
Courageous
Furious
Ark Royal


Aircraft repair CV:
Unicorn

Armoured carriers:

Illustrious
Formidable
Victorious
Indomitable

So actually more than Japan!



The main problem is how they fight without using other land area to fight in ?

Italy is easiest this is almost certainly a GB win, RN destroys the RM and then its goes downhill.... (for Italians)

Japan, would be slow and long and without FIC (or US PI/China) this will be a hard fro anybody to come south (or north) but RN is larger and should be able to hold and then its GB(rest of world trade) v Japan so eventually GB wins (or Japan gets sane and gives up accepts terms)

Germany, the hard part is where they fight ? (sea is small and will not be decisive (only Uboats v RN surface craft after first few encounters) and air will be hard to be decisive (long range bombing without escorts) and they have no land border to fight on (and cant really use amphibious attacks easily, RN to big, Heer to big cancels each other out) so long stalemate till somebody else joins in ......
You mention long range bombing without escorts - not sure where that comes from.
The OTL long range escorts were, after all, aircraft ordered by Britain from the US (and paid for!) with British-designed engines in. So the Mustang is entirely possible.
 
In the title a bit, but was thinking over how stretched British/Commonwealth forces were in World War II and wondered how they'd do against each of the Axis nations in an individual war? Handwaving the causes and so on, would it be as good as I'm taking it?

Germany - The hardest opponent to face and actually inflict a defeat upon. Mostly be a conflict in the air and on the sea with Germany's less than stellar leadership giving them the edge although the U-Boats would cause havoc for a while.

Italy - The problems with Italy's own armed forces would probably see them booted out of North Africa in very short order and Italy itself under threat within a few years.

Japan - This would be a long, bloody campaign which the British and Commonwealth troops would probably go into China for. A steady victory for British and other forces, although Japan would make them pay for each bit of ground.

Thoughts? Any disagreements?

Well.....Britain and the Commonwealth Armed Millions of men during the war and its first tier was as good as anyone else's - better in some cases.

Its difficult to say who would win where etc - I mean if you put the BEFs 10 odd divisions against the German Army in 1940 in a big open field then yes it would lose as it would be out numbered over 10 to one - but placing the entire Commonwealths armed forces against them in 1943 - well thats a different kettle of fish.

And as for Navies.....well only the US had the numbers in 1942 to Match Britain one on one

in 1941 Japan had fewer Carriers (8) , Fewer Capital ships (10), fewer Cruisers (38), Fewer Destroyers (108 in total) and fewer Submarines

At about the same time Britain would have had Carriers (10) Capital Ships (18) Cruisers (70ish?) Destroyers (about 150 'modern' fleet dds and about 70 older ones) and more submarines.

By 1944 the British Commonwealth could have armed about 100 Infantry Divisions - with at least half being fully motorised front line formations with far better support units and logisitics as well as equipment than their Japanese opponents.
 
Regarding IJN and RN one important thing is that the IJN carrier aircraft were much better balanced and generally of higher performance, not to mention their training. Off the top of my head the main RN carrier aircaft in 1941 (excluding US types) are Fulmars, Skuas, Albacores and Swordfish, with some Sea Hurricanes and perhaps Seafires coming along. Also RN's carries generally had lower complements than even IJN ones. These aircraft also have significantly lower ranges compared to japanese aircraft, so the japanese can strike while outside the range of the british aircraft, especially fighters. Initially Hurricanes and Spitfire didn't do very well against Zeros isn't it?

As far as landplanes are concerned, indeed Spits and Hurricanes and also things like Mosquitos, twin and four engined bombers will give the japanese a hard time, but would it be enough to make a difference? Where can you you have Lancasters and Halifaxes bombing Japan from?

Actually all this is an interesting idea for a timeline, but how do you get Japan at war with UK without US involvement. Obviously you could say Germany is defeated in 1940, their offensive in France fails and someone takes Hitler out so there's an armistice signed in 1940, but wonder how do you keep France out of it.
 
Last edited:
Britain funds Tube Alloys, nukes everyone into submission by the end of the '40s. The end.

With conventional weapons - they MIGHT be able to take out Italy in 6 years or so. Germany and Japan have way too much stuff, making any opposed landing nigh impossible.

The most interesting question is whether or not the British can hold Malaya given a full commitment of the RN.
 
You mention long range bombing without escorts - not sure where that comes from.
The OTL long range escorts were, after all, aircraft ordered by Britain from the US (and paid for!) with British-designed engines in. So the Mustang is entirely possible.
I was assuming that at least for the first few years (as OTL) nobody would think they needed them ? after a few years it might change but will they really fight across the north sea for years without anybody else joining in ?

Regarding IJN and RN one important thing is that the IJN carrier aircraft were much better balanced and generally of higher performance,
But how much of that is due to OTL priorities ie preferring to defend UK rather than the fleet ? with no war in Europe they will surly get good fleet fighters much sooner and in massive numbers ?

Britain funds Tube Alloys, nukes everyone into submission by the end of the '40s. The end.

With conventional weapons - they MIGHT be able to take out Italy in 6 years or so. Germany and Japan have way too much stuff, making any opposed landing nigh impossible.

The most interesting question is whether or not the British can hold Malaya given a full commitment of the RN.

I'm not sure I would guess,

Italy - GB wins within 2/3 years (Italy will give up after it loses the fleet and N Africa)

Japan - GB holds Singapore and then attrition for 2-3 years after that they agree to peace on pre war borders (or eventually Japan starves as RN/RAF works its way north but that's 4-5 years)

Germany - yes this one lasts till GB gets nukes (in numbers) 6-8 years ?
 
Last edited:
I'd say that even if the United Kingdom is not at war with (for instance) Germany and Italy, that doesn't mean that the United Kingdom can deploy its full force against (for instance) Imperial Japan. The British government must leave significant forces to defend and to keep pacified the rest of the British Empire, including the defence of the United Kingdom itself from any potential Continental hostility, which must be overwhelmingly superior because the public wouldn't tolerate, for example, enough of the Royal Navy moving to Asia that there was no longer a huge margin of superiority over the Kriegsmarine in Europe.

Things are different if we are moving this to ASB by saying that both sides are free to completely ignore the world outside each other and contribute their entire militaries to war against each other alone.
 
Top