British forces in axis Cold War

[BurkeanLibCon]

As we all know, British military thinking in OTL’s Cold War centred on the BAOR in Germany.

In an alternate timeline where the Nazi’s managed to “win” the war in Europe (losing Africa, but beating Russia somehow and convincing a war-weary Britain into a ceasefire c.1945-46) what would British forces look like in the ensuing Cold War?

Would British thinking become more focused on the Royal Navy and RAF? How does America factor into this?

Bonus points if you can describe nuclear strategy here, assuming they do.

 

[Gillan1220]

Two scenarios I could think of:
Anglo/American - Nazi War by @CalBear. The title itself implies that the U.S. and the UK were the primarily leaders of the allied forces after Germany defeated the USSR in 1943, thus making them "win" World War II until it reignited in 1959. It would soon include Canada and Australia among many allies like India, Vietnam, Brazil, and the Philippines. Post-war, the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia form the superalliance known as the Atomic Four (A4) which ensures that world peace, human rights, self-determination, freedom, democracy, and zero-tolerance policy on genocides will be enacted with force.

Thousand-Week Reich by @AP246. This scenario has an Atlantic Union (think of NATO but against Germany) comprised of the United Kingdom and the Western Hemisphere whose goal is to contain fascism from spreading beyond Europe.

In both scenarios, the British military focused on developing better jets for the RAF, sea-launched jets such as DeHavilland Sea Vixen for the Fleet Air Arm, and interceptors against German bombers or V-2 rockets. The Royal Navy would borrow many American elements and have more submarines to deny U-boats to the Atlantic.

In order to block Germany's access to the Atlantic, there would also be USAAF/USAF and USN bases in Great Britain, Iceland, and Greenland to act like a SoSUS net just like in OTL.

 

[BurkeanLibCon]

Thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of Thousand Week Reich over AANW.

So if Britain kept a maritime/air strategy in this world, would the army end up with the short stick in any defence cuts - or would Whitehall keep everything beefed up as strong as possible given they’re dealing with the Nazis who broke every treaty they ever signed?

 

[Thoresby]

Overall spending would be higher and the main losers would be expeditionary capability, with such a large threat so close to home maintaining East of Suez capability would be cut much sooner, and the Army would overall be a slight loser with the RAF a slight winner. But the major differences would be in the forces themselves, the Army for example would have a lot less light infantry for use all around the world and would be entirely focused on defending against a cross channel invasion/carrying out a cross channel invasion.

 

[BurkeanLibCon]

Overall spending would be higher and the main losers would be expeditionary capability, with such a large threat so close to home maintaining East of Suez capability would be cut much sooner, and the Army would overall be a slight loser with the RAF a slight winner. But the major differences would be in the forces themselves, the Army for example would have a lot less light infantry for use all around the world and would be entirely focused on defending against a cross channel invasion/carrying out a cross channel invasion.

I hate to sound stupid but could you provide some more detail into exactly what force structure Britain would have here?

My thoughts were that Britain would look to maintain dominance in the eastern Mediterranean and the eastern North Atlantic, most likely with the Americans as well. This would probably involve control of Malta and the SBAs on Cyprus as naval/air bases as well as Gibraltar. I also suspect that a connection to the Persian Gulf oil would be necessary, but I’d like to here more of your thoughts on this.

I’m no expert in this at all so I don’t know the exact details of any force structure beyond the Royal Navy maintaining an Atlantic Fleet and a Mediterranean Fleet, the RAF being almost solely dedicated to Northern Europe and the army being a lot smaller than OTL’s Cold War.

Also (and this point is just me), I’m unsure as to how modern anti-amphibious invasion defences look like. I’ve heard a lot about fixed emplacements and fortifications being obsolete but I really don’t know in the age of the missile.

But your point on the army being mostly dedicated to home defence makes a lot of sense. I would perhaps extend it to garrisoning key strongholds such as Malta and perhaps a brigade or two in Iceland. As for the light infantry, how much of it would Britain maintain here?

I’m asking a lot of questions because I’ll probably use anything I learn in present or future projects here and I want to be as accurate as can be realistically expected.

 

[Gillan1220]

Thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of Thousand Week Reich over AANW.

So if Britain kept a maritime/air strategy in this world, would the army end up with the short stick in any defence cuts - or would Whitehall keep everything beefed up as strong as possible given they’re dealing with the Nazis who broke every treaty they ever signed?

Overall spending would be higher and the main losers would be expeditionary capability, with such a large threat so close to home maintaining East of Suez capability would be cut much sooner, and the Army would overall be a slight loser with the RAF a slight winner. But the major differences would be in the forces themselves, the Army for example would have a lot less light infantry for use all around the world and would be entirely focused on defending against a cross channel invasion/carrying out a cross channel invasion.

The British would definitely increase both on coastal, air, and naval defense.

They would do everything to deny the Germans the access to the Atlantic in Gibraltar and even the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal.

I think the British Army and the Territorials would be training on how to make a beach invasion or a paratrooper invasion bloody for the Germans, even though the Germans never had the plans to invade Great Britain and occupy it. I'd expect civilian training for guerilla warfare, with weapon stashes hidden in cities and the countryside.

Other commonwealth troops like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Rhodesia, Nyassaland, and other colonies would probably see some garrisoned in the British Isles and some being stationed on the colonies so that if Britain were to fall, it still has some forces abroad.

Probably the Army would buy more tanks, tank destroyers, AA guns, and coastal defense guns from the United States. This would cause an initial problem on interoperability as the British have different standards than the Americans.

I hate to sound stupid but could you provide some more detail into exactly what force structure Britain would have here?

My thoughts were that Britain would look to maintain dominance in the eastern Mediterranean and the eastern North Atlantic, most likely with the Americans as well. This would probably involve control of Malta and the SBAs on Cyprus as naval/air bases as well as Gibraltar. I also suspect that a connection to the Persian Gulf oil would be necessary, but I’d like to here more of your thoughts on this.

I’m no expert in this at all so I don’t know the exact details of any force structure beyond the Royal Navy maintaining an Atlantic Fleet and a Mediterranean Fleet, the RAF being almost solely dedicated to Northern Europe and the army being a lot smaller than OTL’s Cold War.

Also (and this point is just me), I’m unsure as to how modern anti-amphibious invasion defences look like. I’ve heard a lot about fixed emplacements and fortifications being obsolete but I really don’t know in the age of the missile.

But your point on the army being mostly dedicated to home defence makes a lot of sense. I would perhaps extend it to garrisoning key strongholds such as Malta and perhaps a brigade or two in Iceland. As for the light infantry, how much of it would Britain maintain here?

I’m asking a lot of questions because I’ll probably use anything I learn in present or future projects here and I want to be as accurate as can be realistically expected.

The British would probably mine Gibraltar, the Suez, and the GIUK gap to prevent German U-boats access to the strategic waterways.

An anti-amphibious defense would probably resemble the Atlantic Wall but this time in reverse. The British would put lots of barricades, mines, booby traps, spikes, or even pipes that leak fuel to burn the beaches. I read several Operation Sealion scenarios and many would reply that Britain would have used chemical weapons once the first Germans landed. That itself will open a can of worms.

The Royal Navy would probably receive the Essex-class aircraft carrier from the U.S., retrofitted to fit British standards. That with the U.S. also stationing destroyers, destroyer escorts, submarines, sub hunters, MPAs, and aircraft carriers in Great Britain.

Assuming the Germans would use primitive V-1 and V-2 rockets, it would be hard for the U.S. and the UK to intercept these rockets up until the equivalent of OTL 1950-60s SAM systems could be produced.

Malta and Cyprus would need to be protected as these are important resupply bases for British forces in the Med.

Just what I could think. Probably after the defeat of Japan, the British can bolster the defense of the Commonwealth by getting troops from the Raj, Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Iraq, and other colonies on the East.

 

[Retro_Reaction]

Probably a big emphasis on Sub Launched nuclear weapons as a second strike capability since Nuclear Weapons launched from Belgium or the Netherlands would be hitting London within a couple minutes of launchi

The Army remains as a small but highly trained force that gets deployed to contain German expansion. The expense of the European invasion is never felt by Britain and the army gets a small but sufficient piece of the pie.

Maybe there’s a commonwealth division stationed in the British isles with Canadian, Australian and Indian Regiments with a smattering of other commonwealth nations providing medical and artillery support, if for political reasons rather than actual military value

 

[Mike D]

The British would definitely increase both on coastal, air, and naval defense.

They would do everything to deny the Germans the access to the Atlantic in Gibraltar and even the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal.

I think the British Army and the Territorials would be training on how to make a beach invasion or a paratrooper invasion bloody for the Germans, even though the Germans never had the plans to invade Great Britain and occupy it. I'd expect civilian training for guerilla warfare, with weapon stashes hidden in cities and the countryside.

Other commonwealth troops like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Rhodesia, Nyassaland, and other colonies would probably see some garrisoned in the British Isles and some being stationed on the colonies so that if Britain were to fall, it still has some forces abroad.

Probably the Army would buy more tanks, tank destroyers, AA guns, and coastal defense guns from the United States. This would cause an initial problem on interoperability as the British have different standards than the Americans.

The British would probably mine Gibraltar, the Suez, and the GIUK gap to prevent German U-boats access to the strategic waterways.

An anti-amphibious defense would probably resemble the Atlantic Wall but this time in reverse. The British would put lots of barricades, mines, booby traps, spikes, or even pipes that leak fuel to burn the beaches. I read several Operation Sealion scenarios and many would reply that Britain would have used chemical weapons once the first Germans landed. That itself will open a can of worms.

The Royal Navy would probably receive the Essex-class aircraft carrier from the U.S., retrofitted to fit British standards. That with the U.S. also stationing destroyers, destroyer escorts, submarines, sub hunters, MPAs, and aircraft carriers in Great Britain.

Assuming the Germans would use primitive V-1 and V-2 rockets, it would be hard for the U.S. and the UK to intercept these rockets up until the equivalent of OTL 1950-60s SAM systems could be produced.

Malta and Cyprus would need to be protected as these are important resupply bases for British forces in the Med.

Just what I could think. Probably after the defeat of Japan, the British can bolster the defense of the Commonwealth by getting troops from the Raj, Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Iraq, and other colonies on the East.

Why would the UK spend a shit ton of cash on American kit when they have factories and shipyards of their own which don't involve precious foreign exchange being spent?

At the height of the actual Cold War, while providing forces to face the huge might of the Soviet Union, the UK maintained four armoured divisions and an infantry division for their regular army. The Germans can't possibly afford to maintain a force anywhere near what the Soviets could (their economy was in trouble even in the late 30s and they'll need to keep a huge occupation/border defence force in the east).

If the UK aren't directly fighting the Germans then they're not going to be losing equipment in battle so they won't need to rely on American industry to provide replacements for their armoured force and American ships need vastly larger numbers of sailors compared to British designed ships. Why buy Essex class carriers or Iowas when you can build updated Malta Class or 1952 Design carriers and Lion Class battleships that can do the job just as well?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Lots and Lots of Bloodhound Missiles, both conventional tipped for Anti Aircraft work and Nuclear tipped for Anti Ballistic Missile work.

 

[Gillan1220]

Why would the UK spend a shit ton of cash on American kit when they have factories and shipyards of their own which don't involve precious foreign exchange being spent?

At the height of the actual Cold War, while providing forces to face the huge might of the Soviet Union, the UK maintained four armoured divisions and an infantry division for their regular army. The Germans can't possibly afford to maintain a force anywhere near what the Soviets could (their economy was in trouble even in the late 30s and they'll need to keep a huge occupation/border defence force in the east).

If the UK aren't directly fighting the Germans then they're not going to be losing equipment in battle so they won't need to rely on American industry to provide replacements for their armoured force and American ships need vastly larger numbers of sailors compared to British designed ships. Why buy Essex class carriers or Iowas when you can build updated Malta Class or 1952 Design carriers and Lion Class battleships that can do the job just as well?

I just had a thought the UK would be in a state of bankruptcy if the war continued. To the point, their factories and shipyards may not be able to keep up.

Hence, I think the U.S. would continue the Lend-Lease program here. Or at least a joint Anglo-American defense pact in the event of a German incursion/invasion/V-2 rocket attack.

The scenario I thought of the U.S. lending an Essex-class aircraft carrier to the Royal Navy stems from this discussion:

A Essex in service with the RAN | alternate-timelines.com

So googling about the Essex i found out that an unmodernised Essex was offered to the Royal Australian Navy in 1960 as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne but the offer was declined due to the expense

alternate-timelines.com

It's an interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

I agree the British could still maintain more forces that the Wehrmacht, since Nazi Germany's economy relied on wholesale plunder and conquer.

 

[BurkeanLibCon]

An anti-amphibious defense would probably resemble the Atlantic Wall but this time in reverse. The British would put lots of barricades, mines, booby traps, spikes, or even pipes that leak fuel to burn the beaches. I read several Operation Sealion scenarios and many would reply that Britain would have used chemical weapons once the first Germans landed. That itself will open a can of worms.

Which areas would be more fortified? I suspect South East England may end up looking like the Inner-German border in places.

 

[Interdimensional Nomad]

In addition to all that's been said, I would think that the UK in an Axis victory would more or less become its world's version of Israel, at least in terms of military strategy, readiness, and capabilities (but far more powerful, having many times its population).

While no longer a superpower (decolonization is very hard to avoid after any version of WW2, and would be even harder to morally oppose when said imperial powers are fighting an ideological battle with fascism instead of communism; if anything it would probably happen even faster), it would still be a great power that punches well above its weight, with a very strong military for a country of its size. Because it's surrounded by hostile neighbours, including the superpower that is the victorious Nazi Germany. While there's little hope of them repaying their Lend-Lease debts, I would imagine the Americans (and eventually perhaps other powerful Allied nations like India and China) would switch to direct financial support in the interest of maintaining a strategic bulwark on the doorstep of Axis Europe. I would expect a large amount of missile defenses (this world's equivalent of the Iron Dome would probably be developed by the British), the world's second-strongest navy, a large homegrown defense industry that's a leader in technological advancements, and a functional (and militarized) space program. A strong culture of military readiness against Germany and its allies/puppets would be prevalent.

Because a cold war against a victorious Axis would be way more intense and hostile than any moment in the OTL one against the USSR. This isn't a former ally with whom relations have soured, this was an enemy from the start with whom they were actively at war with before, and technically still are. An enemy with a long history of ignoring or breaking treaties, betraying allies, conquering other nations to plunder them and genocide their citizens, and generally willing to break any international norm for any or no reason. So forget about Outer Space Treaties, nuclear arms limitations, or disarmament treaties of any kind. The only thing that the Allies can count on to protect themselves from what they can only treat as a superpowered rogue state is to make themselves too difficult to conquer, through military superiority, nuclear arms, and the like. Nearly every major allied nation would be more militarized than its OTL counterpart, but the UK, being right next to Nazi Germany and the Europe it conquered, would be the most.

 

[M79]

The English Channel becomes this TLs equivalent of the inter-Korean border with more water and less solid footing. Bunkers dot the landscape from Brest to Bremerhaven and bases run along the whole of the Atlantic Wall. Nord and Pais de Calais become part of Belgium, perhaps the eastern third of France becomes the SS Burgundy they discussed in OTL. Brittany becomes largely autonomous but if firmly in Berlin's/Germania's orbit. Soldiers stand guard, everyone waits for the other side to start something, and it's decades of tense waiting. And waiting. And waiting. U-boats give way to T-Schiffs, V1s to mature cruise missiles, Shermans to Pattons, and battleships to carriers.

Eventually a generation grows up that doesn't know the difference which leads life to eventually normalize somewhat. At some point trade, if not passenger travel, resumes between the UK and Vichy/Paris/French satellite government via ships or hovercraft. No chunnel in this TL but plenty of tourists ready to spend their pounds and dollars in French stores. Spain may eventually gravitate away from Berlin, and perhaps depending on the scenario Rome too, allowing France to regain its true independence just as the Eastern Bloc satellites did in OTL.

 

[Gillan1220]

Which areas would be more fortified? I suspect South East England may end up looking like the Inner-German border in places.

The entirety of Southeast England as a precaution.

Dover is already protected by the cliffs so the Germans would not be able to land there.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The British would definitely increase both on coastal, air, and naval defense.

They would do everything to deny the Germans the access to the Atlantic in Gibraltar and even the Indian Ocean via the Suez Canal.

I think the British Army and the Territorials would be training on how to make a beach invasion or a paratrooper invasion bloody for the Germans, even though the Germans never had the plans to invade Great Britain and occupy it. I'd expect civilian training for guerilla warfare, with weapon stashes hidden in cities and the countryside.

Other commonwealth troops like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Rhodesia, Nyassaland, and other colonies would probably see some garrisoned in the British Isles and some being stationed on the colonies so that if Britain were to fall, it still has some forces abroad.

Probably the Army would buy more tanks, tank destroyers, AA guns, and coastal defense guns from the United States. This would cause an initial problem on interoperability as the British have different standards than the Americans.

The British would probably mine Gibraltar, the Suez, and the GIUK gap to prevent German U-boats access to the strategic waterways.

An anti-amphibious defense would probably resemble the Atlantic Wall but this time in reverse. The British would put lots of barricades, mines, booby traps, spikes, or even pipes that leak fuel to burn the beaches. I read several Operation Sealion scenarios and many would reply that Britain would have used chemical weapons once the first Germans landed. That itself will open a can of worms.

The Royal Navy would probably receive the Essex-class aircraft carrier from the U.S., retrofitted to fit British standards. That with the U.S. also stationing destroyers, destroyer escorts, submarines, sub hunters, MPAs, and aircraft carriers in Great Britain.

Assuming the Germans would use primitive V-1 and V-2 rockets, it would be hard for the U.S. and the UK to intercept these rockets up until the equivalent of OTL 1950-60s SAM systems could be produced.

Malta and Cyprus would need to be protected as these are important resupply bases for British forces in the Med.

Just what I could think. Probably after the defeat of Japan, the British can bolster the defense of the Commonwealth by getting troops from the Raj, Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Iraq, and other colonies on the East.

1.) The latter two were already areas of very high priority pre WW2. Coastal defence was well covered with existing guns and leftovers from WW1.
2.) That goes without saying.
3.) They already had said training through WW2. There isn't a magic methodology that emerges postwar.
4.) Nyasaland? With less than 2000 Europeans in 1945? How are they going to field a force? The idea isn't completely outlandish in principal, with Canada and Australia/New Zealand having the largest capacity; it is more likely to be air forces than the ground troops you seem to be suggesting. Distributing forces to unimportant places is an awful move strategically, as the long term prospects of a broken backed war without Britain are not attractive and not addressing the clear and present danger is...illogical.
5a.) Why? There isn't a glaring need for American tanks post WW2 that can't be filled by greater Centurion production - https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Centurion_tank Looking at the yearly rates there, they need to be lifted to ~720 a year/60 a month and maintained at that level through the 1950s, which might require another dedicated manufacturing plant.
5b.) Tank destroyers are obsolete in the face of the advent of the MBT
5c.) Britain did not lack AA guns and had different calibres to the Yanks. If required, there was capacity for building more 5.25" and 3.7" Mark 6s after 1945. There is a limited window for gun based AA defence post 1945 before it is replaced by the Bloodhounds and other parts of the Stage plan that are likely to see service here.
5d.) Coastal defence guns? What gaps need to be filled post 1945? What American weapons are vitally required to fill them.
5e.) Buying from America post WW2 means using hard currency, which is limited. Even in the exigency of a Cold War against Nazi Europe, there isn't going to be continued Lend Lease or equivalent; rather, US money is going to be used to fund British production a la the MDAP of the 1950s.
6.) This makes no sense as a long term action, as compared to a specific wartime measure and, in each case, is based on a very bizarre understanding of the sea. Mine the Suez Canal? How many German U-Boats are going to clandestinely go through the Suez Canal? The Strait of Gibraltar is narrow enough, but sealing it off with minefields would be an act of war and somewhat precipitous. Mining the entire of the GIUK is utterly impractical.
7.) An Atlantic Wall in reverse doesn't make sense for post 1945 weapons and warfare. You'd see some elements of it, but weapons and threats did change.
8a.) The RN getting Essex class carriers is nonsensical, as others have pointed out; Britain did not lack carriers in 1945, nor the means to build them. As others have said, this scenario very likely results in the 1952 carriers being built and possibly something in the Lion department, depending on the KM capital ship situation.
8b.) Forward deployment of USN ships is likely, but not the kitchen sink you suggest. What type of ship is a 'sub hunter'? A sub-chaser, perchance? They were obsolete in 1945. The most logical US deployment is a carrier task force plus forward deployed submarines; the 1945 RAF did not lack MPA capacity of its own.
9.) The V-1 wasn't a rocket and its interception wasn't a huge tactical conundrum, particularly with the advent of the jet. Intercepting V-2s is, as you suggest, nigh on impossible pre-SAMs, but if these are fired, then it is a war and that means using The Bomb.
10.) Malta, yes. Cyprus? This wasn't a significant deployment area pre WW2 nor a vital one until several other events pushed it to the fore as the leftover Eastern Mediterranean base for Near East forces. There certainly wasn't a significant resupply capacity there.
11,) Just listing countries doesn't make sense. Iraq, being an independent state outside of the British Commonwealth and Empire, is a bizarre inclusion, unless there is a suggestion of deploying the Assyrian Levies abroad. New Guinea? This was an Australian Territory at this time and not a source of manpower or deployable troops. Malaya, Hong Kong and Singapore aren't sources of troops beyond their own defence forces.

I don't fault your enthusiasm, but many of these ideas don't make sense for a logical and sustainable course of action for a post WW2 Britain facing the Nazis next door.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I just had a thought the UK would be in a state of bankruptcy if the war continued. To the point, their factories and shipyards may not be able to keep up.

Hence, I think the U.S. would continue the Lend-Lease program here. Or at least a joint Anglo-American defense pact in the event of a German incursion/invasion/V-2 rocket attack.

The scenario I thought of the U.S. lending an Essex-class aircraft carrier to the Royal Navy stems from this discussion:

A Essex in service with the RAN | alternate-timelines.com

So googling about the Essex i found out that an unmodernised Essex was offered to the Royal Australian Navy in 1960 as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne but the offer was declined due to the expense

alternate-timelines.com

It's an interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

I agree the British could still maintain more forces that the Wehrmacht, since Nazi Germany's economy relied on wholesale plunder and conquer.

1.) No, it would not have been, nor was it postwar. There is no lack of British capacity in either factories or shipyards. In any event, you've got the situation muddled up. The first step is to look at the threat, then at British force structures and capacity. More on this later.
2.) No, it was a wartime measures and not one without its restrictions. It cannot be sustained in the long term. Now, a strategic defence alliance against Germany goes without saying.
3.) That discussion did not touch upon an RN Essex, apart from dismissing it completely out of hand. To cite it in support of the notion of an RN Essex doesn't make sense to me as one of the blokes who was part of that thread.
4.) It isn't. It is a complete and unnecessary waste.
5.) More troops, maybe not. Better forces as a whole might be a better goal, but at some point the nuclear deterrence option is going to play its part.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

What would British forces look like in this scenario?

Army
- With a direct threat across the Channel, there will be a need for a large regular army backed up by the TA and something new - a specific Army Reserve. National Service is going to be a permanent fixture; the historical average was 6000 men twice/month and once in December, rising to 10,000 in the Korean War, but here, it is going to be larger. This creates a large mobilisation pool of trained reservists who would both back up regular units and make up their own formations.
- Sizewise, there will need to be more than the historical CW peak of 9 regular and 10 TA divisions to something like 12 regular, 8-12 reserve and 12 TA divisions. There won't be much change out of 500,000 regulars.
- Regular forces will be more armoured and mechanised divisions, with the reserves and TA adding the (motorised) infantry.
- The amount of tanks needed would be ~3500

RAF
- It will need to continue to have the numbers of the 1950s, but continue to advance in technology and sophistication. There can't be a comparable delay to the development of the Hunter et al, nor as non-supersonic aircraft; the P.1083 should be the aim
- Fighter Command will need perhaps more than the 1950s peak of ~900 aircraft and closer to the ~1500-1600 cited in Dropshot.
- They would be augmented by ~250 RCAF fighters and substantial forward deployed USAF fighters
- RAuxAF would get the Meteors and Vampires as they are replaced by P.1183
- Bomber Command will need to have more than the historical ~640 Canberras of the Light Bomber Force and the ~240 V bombers of the Medium Bomber Force
- The Plan will need to continue into peacetime to maintain the type of force in the next point
- Sizewise, we'd be looking at 350,000-400,000 men

RN
- The size of the force will depend on the KM threat, but it will be larger than the size postulated in Vanguard to Trident p 7 (4 BB, 4 CV, 10 CVL, 32 CA, 64 DD, 40 FF and 45 SS, of which Aus, NZ and Canada to contribute 2 CVL, 5 CA, 16 DD and 16 FF. ). There would certainly need to be more fleet carriers for the Home Fleet, along with more in the Med
- In any event, a large reserve fleet of escorts will stick around for the first 10 years
- Coastal Forces will be maintained at a high level

Nuclear Strategy
- A lot more bombs. The long version is that the minimum deterrent adopted in the circumstances of @ won't cut the mustard. A minimum arsenal of 1000 strategic weapons carried on missiles, bombers, submarines and surface ships, plus ~1000 assorted tactical weapons (NDBs, gravity bombs, SSMs, SAMs, AAMs and nuclear shells)


C.) RAF Force Levels

Year RAF Active /RAF Reserves

1920: 28,708
1921: 27,303
1922: 29,465
1923: 30,083/465
1924: 31,427/6,782
1925: 32,684/6,927
1926: 34,009/7,361
1927: 30,037/10,610
1928: 30,484/12,851
1929: 31,070/13,634
1930: 31,989/13,022
1931: 32,469/12,645
1932: 32,287/11,478
1933: 31,202/10,157
1934: 30,500/10,676
1935: 32,145/11,594
1936: 45,804/11,486
1937: 56,163/13,378
1938: 69,465/16,909
1939: 101,199/38,810
1940: 249,112
1941: 590,358
1942: 933,155
1943: 1,135,040
1944: 1,183,092
1945: 1,142,698
1946: 648,957
1947: 331,469
1948: 256,827/3,275
1949: 224,967/11,765
1950: 201,658/25,750
1951: 237,800/40,892
1952: 270,785/81,729
1953: 277,125/126,128
1954: 265,113/189,366
1955: 258,188/211,233
1956: 242,649/229,171
1957: 227,936/217,595
1958: 191,019/194,121
1959:173,221/179,177
1960: 163,476/154,552
1961: 158,152/492,935
1962: 148,912/508,631
1963: 143,765/538,370
1964: 136,061/541,509
1965: 131,304/84,707
1966: 127,011/84,274
1967: 124,104/81,478
1968: 120,337/83,555

The increase in Reserve manpower from 1961-1964 shows the incorporation of Emergency List Officers and Class G airmen, or the total mobilization strength.

Source: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writ ... d-strength

D.) RAF Aircraft Strengths

1950: 4,510
1951: 5,507
1952: 6,338
1953: 5,549
1954: 4,968
1955: 4,805
1956: 4,730
1957: 3,385
1958: 2,991
1959: 2,657
1960: 2,505
1961: 2,190
1962: 2,341
1963: 2,263
1964: 2,237
1965: 2,220
1966: 2,119
1967: 2,004

Source: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writ ... -strengths

E.) British Army Strengths 1959-61

1959: 303,900 (125,000 National Service)
1960: 265,800 (99,600 National Service)
1961: 230,100 (57,000 National Service)

Source: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.u ... 0-c-14.pdf

 

[Gillan1220]

[SNIP]

Thanks for this input and numbers.

It gives the perspective how the British Armed Forces was like in the years after WWII all the way to the late 60s.

@Interdimensional Nomad already did mention that the UK will probably be like Israel, Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, South Korea, or Taiwan when it comes to national military service, considering the threat lies across the channel. There will be mandatory service for two years since British national security is at stake. Although that is somewhat mitigated by the fact the Germans would not have the navy and amphibious capability to cross the English Channel, the threat for Britain here would come from rockets.

The English Channel would definitely be mined just like how the waters around Japan were during WWII. Think of it as the water version of the Korean DMZ.

- The amount of tanks needed would be ~3500

Any chance OTL late tanks like the Comet, Centurion, and the Chieftain would be developed here? Or at least analogues of them?

RAF
- It will need to continue to have the numbers of the 1950s, but continue to advance in technology and sophistication. There can't be a comparable delay to the development of the Hunter et al, nor as non-supersonic aircraft; the P.1083 should be the aim
- Fighter Command will need perhaps more than the 1950s peak of ~900 aircraft and closer to the ~1500-1600 cited in Dropshot.
- They would be augmented by ~250 RCAF fighters and substantial forward deployed USAF fighters
- RAuxAF would get the Meteors and Vampires as they are replaced by P.1183
- Bomber Command will need to have more than the historical ~640 Canberras of the Light Bomber Force and the ~240 V bombers of the Medium Bomber Force
- The Plan will need to continue into peacetime to maintain the type of force in the next point
- Sizewise, we'd be looking at 350,000-400,000 men

The RAF would definitely increase in size since threats would come from the air. Perhaps there will be an Anglo-American program to develop interceptors or air defense units capable of shooting down V-1 and V-2 rockets.

RN
- The size of the force will depend on the KM threat, but it will be larger than the size postulated in Vanguard to Trident p 7 (4 BB, 4 CV, 10 CVL, 32 CA, 64 DD, 40 FF and 45 SS, of which Aus, NZ and Canada to contribute 2 CVL, 5 CA, 16 DD and 16 FF. ). There would certainly need to be more fleet carriers for the Home Fleet, along with more in the Med
- In any event, a large reserve fleet of escorts will stick around for the first 10 years
- Coastal Forces will be maintained at a high level

Or more sub hunters, sub chasers, minesweepers, minelayers, and maritime patrol planes. Since the Germans mostly focused on the U-boats rather than big surface combatants, more emphasis would be done on ASW capabilities.

Nuclear Strategy
- A lot more bombs. The long version is that the minimum deterrent adopted in the circumstances of @ won't cut the mustard. A minimum arsenal of 1000 strategic weapons carried on missiles, bombers, submarines and surface ships, plus ~1000 assorted tactical weapons (NDBs, gravity bombs, SSMs, SAMs, AAMs and nuclear shells)

Apart from nuclear weapons, I think the UK would also readily deploy their chemical and biological weapons, even though these will open a can of worms.

 

[Scerus]

Well, no L1A1 rifle for instance - I'm pretty sure there was an British alternative that was being explored before they adopted the former, though someone can correct me on that.
I imagine U.S. missiles will be installed in Britain as a forward-defence / deterrent, along with a considerable amount of SAC (or equivalent).

I also presume the British Army will be much larger than in our ITTL Cold War timeline. I expect the Army and Territorial forces might number around 450,000 discounting the RN and RAF, given Britain is very much the frontline in this Cold War. The Royal Navy will be much larger than this timeline, assuming the Atlantic and Med become the main British areas of operation while the Pacific becomes an American lake, if Japan factors into this timeline.

Thus, the Malta Class carriers might well still be ditched in favour of smaller, but still superior to whatever the European Axis powers can deploy. Also worth considering France will be aligned in the Axis alongside Germany and Italy, meaning the Med becomes an area of intense strategic competition.

The Kriegsmarine might focus on submarine warfare development as the Soviets did, knowing there is no way they could plausibly defeat the RN or USN.

 

[Gillan1220]

Well, no L1A1 rifle for instance - I'm pretty sure there was an Enfield derivative that was being explored before they adopted the former, though someone can correct me on that.

I would like to think the British would adapt the M14 for that matter. In @CalBear's AANW, the M14 is used by the allies and the A4. It is known in TTL as the M1A1 Select Fire Rifle.