British Weapons Enter Service A Year Earlier

Centurions in time for D-Day and knocking the crap out of the Panzerwaffe? Excellent.

And if the Luftwaffe had "Moskitopanic", imaging their laundrybill when they have a few squadrons of Hornets flying over the Reich with near impunity.
 

Driftless

Donor
More extensive use of ASDIC at an earlier date, with practical operational training. I don't know what change of conditions would cause that earlier development
 
Centurions in time for D-Day and knocking the crap out of the Panzerwaffe? Excellent.

And if the Luftwaffe had "Moskitopanic", imaging their laundrybill when they have a few squadrons of Hornets flying over the Reich with near impunity.

The Mossie could have entered service earlier, if the Air Ministry had been prepared to actually listen to DeHavilland when he first proposed it. All the technology was already in place. It was just a matter of building the thing.
 
The Six Pounder antitank gun in service by May 1940 could be a game changer. It's entry into service in late 1940 was delayed by the invasion 'panic' of May/June.
So if the planned entry into service is advanced by one year then early 1940 it is. Panzers go ouch in both France and North Africa.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Mossie could have entered service earlier, if the Air Ministry had been prepared to actually listen to DeHavilland when he first proposed it. All the technology was already in place. It was just a matter of building the thing.
Earlier and more would have made a MASSIVE difference.
 
Hispanos in 1940 would have jacked up Luftwaffe casualties in the Battle of Brittan,especially amongst the bombers.
That would have serious consequences 1 year later at the start of Barbarossa.
They almost made it. A little more urgency in their procurement and adaption to belt feed and having Hurricane IICs in service during the BoB should be doable. The Question is would that ultimately be a good thing. Even higher Luftwaffe casualties could have an effect on the timing of Barbarossa.
 
Mossies instead of Blenheim IVs? Assuming of course they use them correctly.
I don't see why there could not have been Mossies in place of the Blenheim I and Battle. Even with early Merlin engines it ought to be a big improvement.

But if Mossies were in place of the Blenheim IV it's likely that there would also be Mossies in place of the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
 
I don't see why there could not have been Mossies in place of the Blenheim I and Battle. Even with early Merlin engines it ought to be a big improvement.

But if Mossies were in place of the Blenheim IV it's likely that there would also be Mossies in place of the Beaufort and Beaufighter.
The last 1000 Battles would give 500 Mosquitos very useful. Why Blenheim IV and not I? As I understand it the Mosquito was first proposed in 1938 so even with top priority getting it in service before the start of the war would be pushing things too far. It should however be possible to have them at least partially replace the Blenheim IVs of the Advanced Air Striking force by May 1940.

Mosquitos instead of Beaufighters? Absolutely. Mosquitos instead of Beauforts? Eventually but that is not a role that DeHavilland envisioned for them, so until the original requirements had been met it would have to wait. It might see the Beaufighter, now it's not needed for it's designed role used instead of the Beaufort though. Coastal Command crews would have a much higher chance of survival. The Beaufighter might also be sent to the Far East to replace the Blenheim Is that had already been sent when the Blenheim IV replaced them in Britain.
 
I know of its problems but the Tetrarch light tank could have entered service earlier if the War Office hadn't faffed about. So Tetrarchs in France instead of MkVIc light tanks. 2pdr guns instead of 15mm besa machineguns. Wouldn't alter the final outcome of the battle but could possibly knock enough extra Panzers (or rather the crews) out that Sealion is never even planned.
 
Castle Bromwich Assembly Factory starts serial Spitfire production a year earlier (Juneish 1939) than OTL - all fighter command squadrons are subsequently equipped with Spitfire MK1 or Mk2 by May 1940 - freeing up many hundreds of Hurricanes for overseas use and to supply to allied nations.....and some are grudgingly given to the RAF's greatest foe.....the Fleet Air Arm
 
Yes, but I'd like a plausible explanation of how it's achieved.
I'll start the ball rolling with the King George V class battleships.
They can't be laid down any earlier because of the naval arms limitation treaties. However, each ship was scheduled to be built in 3½ years and they all took longer to build. That was mainly due to the late delivery of the turrets, but Anson and Howe were also suspended for a time because of the invasion crisis in 1940......
...Extra warships are out of bounds so no second Vanguard. ..However, re-using existing turrets was supposed to cut the building time of Vanguard to 2 years, i.e. October 1943, but instead she was completed in May 1946 or 2.5 years late. Therefore if a plausible reason to complete her on time can be given then that is allowed.
The admiralty wakes seriously scared in March 1936 (due to a combination if Rhineland, Abyssinia and Japan) and realised its now or never so it orders the KVGs as the last class it will get before the war, looking at its options it has 8 spare twin 15" mounts (the 4 spare used in Vanguard and the 4 on monitors) this gives it sufficient to build two fast ships that will be laid down in 2nd Jan 37 for use by early 39 (2 years due to less delays than OTL war built Vanguard) some compromises must be accepted to make them faster, 4.5" guns rather than newer now cancelled 5.25" as well as going over the treaty limits 14"/35,000t. (political permission is sought and agreed for 40,000t since its obvious that the treaties are failing all round)

Then somebody remembers that the RN still has the 13.5" mounts and guns from ID and Tiger stored away (9 twins) and swaps them on the two worse condition R class to free up another 8 15" mounts for the last GB battleships laid down in 5 may 37, they are completed slightly slower (2 1/2 yr) due to the mounting rearmament workload by October 37.

All four are worked up by the action off Norway when PoW and Anson escorted by Glorious and destroyers catch and destroy S&G marking the largest surface action of the entire GB/German war.
 
The admiralty wakes seriously scared in March 1936 (due to a combination if Rhineland, Abyssinia and Japan) and realised its now or never so it orders the KVGs as the last class it will get before the war, looking at its options it has 8 spare twin 15" mounts (the 4 spare used in Vanguard and the 4 on monitors) this gives it sufficient to build two fast ships that will be laid down in 2nd Jan 37 for use by early 39 (2 years due to less delays than OTL war built Vanguard) some compromises must be accepted to make them faster, 4.5" guns rather than newer now cancelled 5.25" as well as going over the treaty limits 14"/35,000t. (political permission is sought and agreed for 40,000t since its obvious that the treaties are failing all round)

Then somebody remembers that the RN still has the 13.5" mounts and guns from ID and Tiger stored away (9 twins) and swaps them on the two worse condition R class to free up another 8 15" mounts for the last GB battleships laid down in 5 may 37, they are completed slightly slower (2 1/2 yr) due to the mounting rearmament workload by October 37.

All four are worked up by the action off Norway when PoW and Anson escorted by Glorious and destroyers catch and destroy S&G marking the largest surface action of the entire GB/German war.

In the late 30s Britain had a total of 9 large gun pits capable of reconditioning the twin 15" Mk1n Turrets found on the refits and/or making new turrets for the KGVs / Lions and from what I recall reconditioning a turret or building a new one took about 8-12 months - if you start stacking up turrets to recondition then you are not building new ones - the Italians had the same issue in their rebuilds seriously delayed the modern units.

I'd say stick with the Quad 14" and have all 3 turrets as Quads and build 6 units (the 6th being Vanguard as a KGV) as quickly as possible from Jan 1st 1936 and don't bugger about with the turrets or Guns stick with 3x4x14" and be done with it. The delay in designing and building the twin 14" turrets delayed the ship's - deal with the stability issues and get them built ASAP. If time allows the follow on 6 Lions can have more time spared on them

As for the 5.25" guns their range and max altitude make a lot sense when you consider than in 1936 Bombers are flying higher and faster carrying more bombs and Destroyers/Crusiers are getting bigger and firing torpedos from further away - radar directed twin 5" guns firing Proximity fused ammo is science fiction at this time.

As is the practical application of Radar so the shagbats stay as well

Draw a line under the design as early as possible, order them all in 1936 and get building them ASAP laid down as close as possible to Jan 1st 1937 - have all launched by end of year 1939 (plan to lay down the Lions as soon as the slipway is free!) and all 6 in commission in 1940/41 and the Lions plan to be launched during 42 and all in commission by 1944 - War notwithstanding!

- perfection is the enemy of the good enough as they say! (it might have been Arther C Clark wot said it)
 
In the late 30s Britain had a total of 9 large gun pits capable of reconditioning the twin 15" Mk1n Turrets found on the refits and/or making new turrets for the KGVs / Lions and from what I recall reconditioning a turret or building a new one took about 8-12 months - if you start stacking up turrets to recondition then you are not building new ones - the Italians had the same issue in their rebuilds seriously delayed the modern units.

I'd say stick with the Quad 14" and have all 3 turrets as Quads and build 6 units (the 6th being Vanguard as a KGV) as quickly as possible from Jan 1st 1936 and don't bugger about with the turrets or Guns stick with 3x4x14" and be done with it. The delay in designing and building the twin 14" turrets delayed the ship's - deal with the stability issues and get them built ASAP. If time allows the follow on 6 Lions can have more time spared on them

As for the 5.25" guns their range and max altitude make a lot sense when you consider than in 1936 Bombers are flying higher and faster carrying more bombs and Destroyers/Crusiers are getting bigger and firing torpedos from further away - radar directed twin 5" guns firing Proximity fused ammo is science fiction at this time.

As is the practical application of Radar so the shagbats stay as well

Draw a line under the design as early as possible, order them all in 1936 and get building them ASAP laid down as close as possible to Jan 1st 1937 - have all launched by end of year 1939 (plan to lay down the Lions as soon as the slipway is free!) and all 6 in commission in 1940/41 and the Lions plan to be launched during 42 and all in commission by 1944 - War notwithstanding!

- perfection is the enemy of the good enough as they say! (it might have been Arther C Clark wot said it)

The quad turret appears to have been a bug-a-boo that the Brits didn't solve fast enough, why not just replace the 10-14" with 9 in the form of 3 triples and be done with it?
 
In the late 30s Britain had a total of 9 large gun pits capable of reconditioning the twin 15" Mk1n Turrets found on the refits and/or making new turrets for the KGVs / Lions and from what I recall reconditioning a turret or building a new one took about 8-12 months - if you start stacking up turrets to recondition then you are not building new ones - the Italians had the same issue in their rebuilds seriously delayed the modern units.

I'd say stick with the Quad 14" and have all 3 turrets as Quads and build 6 units (the 6th being Vanguard as a KGV) as quickly as possible from Jan 1st 1936 and don't bugger about with the turrets or Guns stick with 3x4x14" and be done with it. The delay in designing and building the twin 14" turrets delayed the ship's - deal with the stability issues and get them built ASAP. If time allows the follow on 6 Lions can have more time spared on them
My plan was not to build any new guns or mounts (ever again but might not advertise that fact) so just rebuilding 15" mounts to Mark I/N standard, as this has already been started for Warspites rebuild its should be easier to complete fast as its a known design. The 14" systems are all cancelled (and later 16" never leave the paper stage).

9 pits working on an 8 month cycle gives you 13 mounts a year so that would easily do the 16 for the Vanguards. The question is can I also do the 12 more needed for the three OTL rebuilds (QE/V/R) that happened after Warspite's I'm not sure but rebuilding 16 must be less than building all the new larger mounts 10xQuads 5xTwins (+ wasted effort on Lion triples). I may have to open the old smaller pits earlier to fit them?

I just don't see much if any advantage to 14" over 15" (or even 16") they will all do the job v German or Italian ships and I would rather have 15" with far fewer issues sooner.

The quad turret appears to have been a bug-a-boo that the Brits didn't solve fast enough, why not just replace the 10-14" with 9 in the form of 3 triples and be done with it?
I think any new turret would have been a problem, due to the short time frame available. The RN looks like it did not have sufficient competent mount designers post WWI if you look at the 16"/14"/4.5"/5.25"/etc they all suffered.

As for the 5.25" guns their range and max altitude make a lot sense when you consider than in 1936 Bombers are flying higher and faster carrying more bombs and Destroyers/Crusiers are getting bigger and firing torpedos from further away - radar directed twin 5" guns firing Proximity fused ammo is science fiction at this time.
The 4.5" with new split ammo will work fine, the 5.25" was more balanced for surface fire than AA and with hindsight that's far less important, its also a later design so I would far rather cut it to save on the number of new calibres, ie all new ships would be 4.5" (cancel new 4.7"/45, 4.7"/50 and 5.25").

As is the practical application of Radar so the shagbats stay as well
No they go on the rebuild Hawkins/CLs as fast AA escorts to minimize fire risks and free space for more AA...

Draw a line under the design as early as possible, order them all in 1936 and get building them ASAP laid down as close as possible to Jan 1st 1937 - have all launched by end of year 1939 (plan to lay down the Lions as soon as the slipway is free!) and all 6 in commission in 1940/41 and the Lions plan to be launched during 42 and all in commission by 1944 - War notwithstanding!

- perfection is the enemy of the good enough as they say! (it might have been Arther C Clark wot said it)
I don't think you need that much, 4 Vanguards in 39 is worth far more than any number of KVGs in 42 or Lions in 44. The need is for fast ships to match the German raider PBs/CAs/S&G/B&T as well as potentially the RMs 12.6" and 15" ships for the vital 39-42 time frame having 7 fast ships 4V +H and R&R is far better than OTL(I would love your 6 KVGs but cant see how that doesn't eat massively more production than my 4 Vanguards ?)
 
I don't think you need that much, 4 Vanguards in 39 is worth far more than any number of KVGs in 42 or Lions in 44. The need is for fast ships to match the German raider PBs/CAs/S&G/B&T as well as potentially the RMs 12.6" and 15" ships for the vital 39-42 time frame having 7 fast ships 4V +H and R&R is far better than OTL(I would love your 6 KVGs but cant see how that doesn't eat massively more production than my 4 Vanguards ?)
I see two problems with that. 1st the Admiralty doesn't know and can't afford to plan for that. 2nd it makes no allowance for the rising Japanese threat.
 
Have Roy Chadwick realise early on that the Rolls Royce Vulture is a dud and switch to the RR Merlin before the first metal is cut for the Avro Manchester. This leads to the Avro Manchester being introduced at the same time as in reality (November 1940) but now is actually the Lancaster BI (introduced February 1942).
 
The STEN and Bren guns would inflict more casualties on the Axis powers infantry rise and may slow their advance to a degree. Not by much but it might save allied lives.
 
The STEN and Bren guns would inflict more casualties on the Axis powers infantry rise and may slow their advance to a degree. Not by much but it might save allied lives.

No way for the Sten to get started a year earlier, no need for a cheap weapon before France falls along with most of the BEF gear. I could see Lanchesters, though, since they were cheaper than the Cash and Carry Thompsons of 1940
 
Top